B.A. No. 832/2022.
MHCC020047332022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 832 OF 2022.
IN
C.R. No 45 of 2021.
Nandu Ashokkumar Sahu
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of South Region Cyber
Police Station Vide C. R. No. 45 of 2021.)
… Respondent
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. H. P. Wadje for the applicant/ accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Anand Sukhdeve for state present.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED :19th JULY, 2022
By
this
ORDER
application the
applicant/accused
Nandu
Ashokkumar Sahu seeks to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, (In short, “Cr.P.C”), as they being
accused in C.R. No. 45 of 2021 registered with North Region Cyber
Page 1 of 6
B.A. No. 832/2022.
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 469
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (In short “IPC”) and Sections 66(D)
of the Information Technology Act (In short “IT Act”).
THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPLICANT’S CASE ENSUES AS UNDER,
2.
The informant Adv. Vinod Prakash Sangvikar was in receipt of a
friend request from the social media platform Facebook. The informant
is practicing as an advocate at principal bench of the High Court of
judicature at Bombay for a period of nearly 7 years. On receipt of such
friend request the informant got suspicious and in order to verify the
same he met the principal private secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of the Bombay High Court and shared the said fact with him. Upon
verifying the said fact it revealed that a fake account in the name of
Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court was opened by some
unknown individual. Accordingly, the PPS to Hon’ble Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court Mr. Ajay Losarwar, immediately reported the said
issue to the DCP Cyber crimes BKC Mumbai. Accordingly, office was
registered under sections Ibid. The sleuth of South region cyber police
station, during the course of investigation revealed that the said wanted
accused was a resident of the Padmpur, Dist Bargadh, Odisha.
Accordingly, the Applicant accused was arrested upon appropriate
compliances and he was put under arrest.
3.
Ld. advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
Applicant accused is falsely implicated and is arrested merely on
suspicion . It is further stated that, the open is registered against the
accused is not punishable with death or imprisonment of life and except
Page 2 of 6
B.A. No. 832/2022.
section 468 of the Indian penal code all other sections invoked are
available in nature. Further no role pertaining to cheating or forgery has
been attributed throughout the FIR. Thus, in view of the same, the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlargement of the
applicant/accused on bail.
4.
Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide exhibit
2, and inter alia have resisted the application upon various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the Applicant/accused has created a fake
account in the name of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court
and the said act is in itself serious offence. During the course of
investigation, it has revealed that the Applicant/accused is engaged into
creating such fake accounts of the light personalities and it is for the
purposes of cheating individuals in order to liquidate monetary gains.
Further, the prosecution apprehends abscondance and tampering of
prosecution evidence. Considering the gravity of offence, the learned
prosecutor submits that, there is a like possibility of enhancement of
certain sections.
Lastly, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of
application.
5.
Heard learned advocate for Applicant/accused, and learned
prosecutor for the state. Perused application and reply.
6.
On meticulous examination of the case record it evinces to
myself that, admittedly it has revealed during the course of
investigation that, the Applicant/accused has created such fake
Facebook account in the name of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay
High Court and accordingly had sent such friend request to the
Page 3 of 6
B.A. No. 832/2022.
informant. In this regard such corroborative material was seized from
the Applicant/accused, wherein the law enforcement agency has
provided an information that the Applicant accused had used a specific
mobile number in order to generate such fake Facebook account in the
name of the audible Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. It has also
revealed that the alleged mobile number which was used for creation of
such fake Facebook account is registered in the name of the Applicant
accused and accordingly the mobile and the SIM card is seized by the
sleuth of Respondent agency.
7.
While deciding an application for bail it is settled that the
Court is required to see whether the primafacie case exists or not. It is
not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits of
prosecution case.
8.
The learned advocate for Applicant/accused in order to
buttress his contentions have relied upon to case laws
1. Motiram and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1978, SUPREME COURT 1594.
2. Arnesh Kumar versus state of Bihar and another, criminal
appeal No. 1277 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL)
No. 9127 of 2013, Decided on 2 July 2014.
9.
Considering the conspectus of the aforesaid case laws it is
evident that the learned advocate for Applicant/accused have agitated
for the fact that considering the quantum of punishment under the
sections invoked, the Applicant is entitled for bail. It is evident that the
prosecution has categorically stated that, there is a like possibility of
Page 4 of 6
B.A. No. 832/2022.
enhancement in the sections as the reports from the authorities are yet
to be received. And in this regard considering the same, the conduct of
the accused and the material seized from the Applicant/accused speaks
in quantum. Undoubtedly, the Applicant/accused has created a fake
Facebook account and that too in the name of the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of the Bombay High Court. There is no explanation with regard to the
said fact from the Applicant/accused. It is also evident that post filing of
chargesheet the Applicant/accused had preferred such application for
enlargement on bail and was denied of such relief. Most such rejection
of application for grant of bail, no substantial change in circumstance
has been propelled by the Applicant/accused in the entire application.
Therefore, post rejection of the bail application by the magistrate court,
the Applicant/accused has failed to propel out such a substantial change
in circumstance in order to avail the benefit of enlargement on bail. In
the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, as the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra: –
ORDER
Bail Application No. 832/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 19.07.2022
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.07.22
17:45:00 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.37)
Dictated on
: 19.07.2022.
Transcribed on : 20.07.2022.
HHJ signed on : 22.07.2022.
Page 5 of 6
B.A. No. 832/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
22.07.2022
05.44 p.m.
Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI A. A. JOGLEKAR
Room No.)
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of
19.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by
22.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
22.07.2022
signed
Page 6 of 6