1
MHCC020039402024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 602 OF 2024
Muzammil Mainuddin Talikoti
… Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of Trombay Police Station vide … Respondent/State
C.R. No. 62/2024)
Appearance :Ms. Swati Acharya, Ld. Advocate for Applicant/Accused.
Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicant/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing
him on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.62/2024 registered
with Trombay police station for the offence punishable under
Sections 419, 420 of I.P.C. and Section 66 (C) (D) of I.T. Act.

2.

Applicant/accused submitted that he is innocent and
has not committed any crime. Applicant/accused submitted that he
has been falsely implicated in this crime. The amount received from
2
the informant in his account is transferred by the applicant to the
informant. Police have failed to comply with mandatory provisions
of Section 41-A of Cr. P.C. There is no criminal antecedent against
applicant/accused. No purpose will be served by keeping applicant
behind bar. The applicant is ready to abide by any terms and
conditions imposed by the court. Hence, applicant/accused prayed
for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R. 62/2024 registered
with Trombay. police station.
3.

The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.2 and
resisted the application on the ground that if bail is granted to
applicant/accused, then he will again commit similar types of
offence. There is also possibility that he will put pressure on
witnesses. He will not remain present before Court if
bail is
granted to him. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of
bail application.
4.

Heard
applicant/accused
Ld.
and
Adv.
Ld.

Ms.
APP
Swati
O.S.

Acharya
for
the
Maraskolhe
for
Respondent/State.
5.

It is submitted by Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused
that applicant/accused is falsely implicated in this case. There is no
iota of evidence against applicant/accused. She submitted that most
of the investigation is completed. She submitted that Section 420 of
I.P.C. as well as Section 66(C)(D) of Information Technology Act are
not applicable to the present case. Hence, she prayed that
applicant/accused be released on regular bail. In support of her
3
submission she placed reliance on following rulings of the Hon’ble
High Court.
1.

Jangala Smbasiva Rao V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, before
the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 28.10.2020
in IA No.2/2020 in CRLP No.4854 of 2020.

2.

Copy of order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ABA No.
3381/2022 dated 6.12.2022, Goldie Sud V/s. State of
Maharashtra.

3.

Copy of order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ABA No.
2463/2022 dated 10.10.2022, Hridayshankar Shivprasad
Dubey V/s. State of Maharashtra.

4.

Criminal Writ Petition No.4361/2018 before Hon’ble Bombay
High Court, Gagan Sharma V/s. State of Maharashtra.

5.

Copy of order of the Hon’ble Bombay Sessions Court in BA
No. 2349/2023 dated 25.10.2023, Ashraf Ali Noor
Mohammed Khan V/s. State of Maharashtra.

6.

As against this Ld. APP O.S. Maraskolhe submitted that
investigation is in progress. Applicant/accused will commit similar
type of offence. Hence, he prayed for rejection of application.
7.

Perused contents of bail application and say filed by
investigating officer. By this application applicant/accused prayed
for grant of regular bail. I have gone through the F.I.R. The F.I.R.
has been lodged against unknown person. There are allegation in
F.I.R. that applicant/accused given false assurance to the informant
that he will receive the commission for part time work from home
and she was instigated to deposit amount of Rs. 3,65,540/- in the
4
account and she was given false assurance that she will receive the
entire amount. But she was not given any amount and thereby
cheated
to
him.

During
the
investigation
the
name
of
applicant/accused has been disclosed. From the say of investigating
officer as well as the contents of the application, it appears that an
amount of Rs.16,000/- came to be transferred in the account of
applicant/accused.

The
applicant/accused
has
specifically
mentioned in the application that only amount of Rs. 16,000/- was
transferred in the account. This fact has not been denied by the
investigating officer. The report of the investigating officer also
shows that the amount of Rs.16,000/- was deposited by the wife of
accused in the account of complainant. During the investigation,
nothing
has
been
recovered
at
the
instance
of
the
applicant/accused. Applicant/accused is ready to abide by all terms
and conditions imposed by the Court. The alleged offence is triable
by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Applicant/accused is not having
any criminal antecedent. No purpose will be served by keeping
applicant behind bar. It will take time to commence hearing of case.
If bail is not granted to the applicant/accused, then it will amount
to pre-trial conviction. Hence, by imposing conditions he should be
enlarged on bail.
8.

Considering the nature of offence and role played by
the applicant/accused in the crime I am of the view that the
applicant/accused is entitled to be released on regular bail.
Therefore the bail application liable to be allowed. Hence, I proceed
to pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal
Bail
Application
No.602
of
2024
filed
by
5
Applicant/accused is allowed.
2.

Applicant/accused namely Muzammil Mainuddin Talikoti, resident
of 323-K, A-ward, Margai Galli, Shivaji Peth, Kolhapur-416 012, be
released on regular bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/along with one or more sureties in like amount in connection with
C.R. No. 62/2024 registered with Trombay Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 of the I.P.C. and
section 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act,
2000 on following conditions :(a) The applicant/accused is directed to attend the concerned
police station on every Sunday in between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00
noon till filing of the charge-sheet.
(b) The applicant/accused is directed not to commit similar types
of offence.
(c) The applicant/accused and his sureties shall provide their
respective residential addresses, mobile numbers and email
addresses, if any to investigation officer. The applicant/accused
shall intimate any such change in address or telephone number
and Email ID forthwith.
(d) The applicant/accused should not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
facts of case so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts to
Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with the
evidence and prosecution witnesses.
(e) The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of Ld.Trial Court.
(f) Breach of any conditions by the the applicant/accused, shall
result in cancellation of bail.

3.

Provisional
cash
bail
of
Rs.25,000/-
is
allowed
to
the
6
applicant/accused for period of 4 weeks to furnish surety from the
date of release.
4.

Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

5.

Criminal Bail Application No.602 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 19.03.2024
Dictated on
: 19/03/2024
Transcribed on : 20/03/2024
HHJ signed on : 21/03/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
21/03/2024 2.15 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 19/03/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 21/03/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 21/03/2024
on