CNR No.

MHCC02-001113-2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2022
Paghadal Bharatbhai Vashrambhai
Age – 34 year, Occ – Business,
R/o – C/o, Flat No.6, Unit No.4,
1st floor, Patel Colony, Gruhastha
CHS Ltd, Dahisar East, Bharucha Road,
Dahisar
…
Applicant
…
Respondent
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Police Station,
BKC
C.R.No.339/2021)
Appearance:
Mr. Sunny Aaron Waskar, Ld. Adv. for applicant.
Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar, Ld. Addl. P.P.
CORAM :
DATED :
HIS HONOUR ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE M. G. DESHPANDE
(C.R.No.16)
February 8, 2022
ORDER
1.

Applicant Paghadal Bharatbhai Vashrambhai is accused in
C.R.No.339/2021 registered with BKC Police Station under Ss.420,406
of IPC. He is praying for bail contending that, his first bail application
was rejected by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. He is not involved in
the crime in any manner and got falsely implicated.

He further
contended that, he is transferred to this crime and had undergone
police custody remand. With this, it is contended to allow the
application.

.. 2..

BA No.225/2022
2.

Prosecution reiterated the story alleged in the FIR vide say
(Exh.2) of Investigating Officer and further contended that thorough
investigation is necessary. If accused is released on bail he will abscond
and frustrate the investigation.

With this, it is prayed to reject the
application.
3.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Sunny Aaron Waskar for the applicant
and Ld. A.P.P. Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar. Following points arise for my
determination.

I am recording following findings thereon for the
reasons discussed below :POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether the applicant has made out a
strong prima-facie case to grant protection
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. ?

No
2.

What Order ?

Application stands
rejected.
REASONS
POINT NO.1.
FACTS INVOLVED IN C.R.No.339 OF 2021.
4.

One Dinesh Amthalal Shah, a Diamond Businessman,
lodged FIR alleging that he runs diamonds business in the name and
style “C Dinesh and Co. Pvt. Ltd.”.

Jaysukhbhai Desai, his
acquaintances, is also doing the same business.

He used to sell
diamonds to various businessmen dealing with such businessmen. He
used to obtain Jangad (receipt) while handing diamonds to the
concerned. He made such transactions through Jaysukhbhai Desai.
Jaysukhbhai Desai used to sell diamonds to one Bharatbhai Patel. In
this way through Jaysukhbhai Desai developed confidence in
Bharatbhai Patel.

.. 3..

BA No.225/2022
5.

In March,2021 Jaysukhbhai Desai approached Dinesh Shah
(informant) stating that there is one customer for diamonds and the
same is applicant i.e. Bharatbhai Patel.

As the Jaysukh Desai had
previously transacted with Bharatbhai, on 02.03.2021 Bharatbhai
alongwith Jaysukhbhai Desai visited his firm and informant handed
over diamonds of 283.37 carats.

Accordingly, Jangad (receipt) was
prepared and Bharatbhai signed the same. The price of the said
diamonds was Rs.4700/- per carat. In this way, the informant handed
diamonds worth Rs.15 Lakh and also executed Jangad (receipt).
Subsequently, Jaysukh Desai was pursuing Bharatbhai Patel for the said
diamonds. But Bharatbhai Patel used to put forward a reason that he
was out of town and unable to return due to Covid-19 lock down.
Therefore, the informant was doubtful about the conduct of Bharatbhai
Patel.

Later
on,
Bharatbhai
Patel
i.e. informant and Jaysukhbhai Desai.

stopped
responding
them
Therefore, FIR was lodged.

These are the facts.
6.

It is material to note that, this applicant has another name
i.e. Bharat Vashram Paghadal and he was arrested in connection with
C.R.No.1194/2021 for the similar offence under Sec.420,406 of I.P.C.
From the said crime he was requested to be transferred to the instant
crime and accordingly, the request was granted. It is material to note
that, while rejecting his first bail application Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate observed that the accused obtained diamonds from the first
informant for selling.

He further assured payment for the said
diamonds. The accused had not denied this fact and did not inform the
informant what he had made with the said diamonds. After believing
the accused initially, informant lodged first information report when
perceived that he got cheated at the hands of the accused. It is material
.. 4..

BA No.225/2022
to note that, in interrogation the applicant referred name of Anil
Sanghvi contending that, he had sold diamonds to Mr. Anil Sanghvi. But
this fact turned false when the investigating agency visited Mr. Anil
Sanghvi. In my opinion, prima-facie an element of cheating is reflected
from the conduct of the accused.

Cheated articles are valuable
diamonds and the recovery thereof is a material part of the
investigation. If the accused is released on bail, the same will frustrate
the very purpose and object of the investigation.
7.

Conduct of the accused cannot be ignored. Initially he
avoided to approach the informant on the pretext of Covid-19, but
subsequently got arrested in another crime; from which his custody was
obtained by Investigating Officer. In short, I hold that this is a fit case
where thorough investigation is necessary. Investigation is going on.
Unless the same is completed, releasing the accused on bail is not
justified. Therefore, I hold that there is absolutely no prima-facie case
made out by the applicant.

Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the
negative and the following order is passed :ORDER
Bail Application No.225 of 2022 stands rejected.
Digitally signed
by MADHAV
GOPAL
MADHAV
DESHPANDE
GOPAL
DESHPANDE Date:
2022.02.09
15:09:57 +0530
Dt.: 08.02.2022
Signed on
( M.G. Deshpande )
Addl. Sessions Judge.
C.R.No.16, Gr.Bombay at Mumbai
: 08.02.2022
.. 5..

BA No.225/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
09.02.2022 at
hours
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge
Date
of
judgment/order
pronouncement
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
HHJ M. G. DESHPANDE
(COURT ROOM NO.16)
of 08.02.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on
08.02.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on
09.02.2022