Bail Application No.76/2024.
MHCC020005262024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 538 OF 2023.

Parul Nilesh Shrivastava
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.538/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Hitendra Gandhi A/w Adv. Chandan Yadav for the
Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 15TH JANUARY, 2024.

Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.76/2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Parul Nilesh Shrivastava
being accused in C.R.No.538/2023 registered with Matunga Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 341, 347,
323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as,
“IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, as on 17.12.2023 at
about 00.15 hours the informant brought casting gold and gold filing
dust bag from Kolkatta, West Bengal by train. While the informant
were taking over the muddemal article by taxi at Dadar, and were
passing through Lower Parel, at the road opposite to Rami Hotel. 6
individuals stopped their taxi and forcibly took away red colour bag
containing 35 Kg of casting gold and gold filing dust containing 650
grams of gold thereby amounting to Rs.27 lakhs approximately. The
said articles were stolen by the accused persons.

The sleuth of
respondent agency accordingly upon their inputs had intercepted the
accused persons and had put them under arrest.
3.

It is stated that, upon a secret information received by the
sleuth of respondent agency it revealed that, the accused namely
Nilesh Shrivastav being the main accused had proposed to travel out
of the state alongwith his family.

A trap was laid and while the
accused alongwith his family were traveling by rickshaw, they were
intercepted and it is the present applicant/accused, who had helped
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.76/2024.
the accused No.1 i.e. her husband to flee from the spot. Thereafter,
she was put under arrest after obtaining an appropriate permission
from the Ld. Magistrate. Furthermore, search was conducted and
accordingly muddemal was seized. Thus, the offence was registered
under sections ibid.
4.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is not at all concerned in the present crime and is
merely arrested on the basis of suspicion. It is stated that, the police
have planted the alleged recovered muddemal and that, the
applicant/accused never participated in the alleged dacoity.

It is
stated that, as the police failed to arrest the husband of the
applicant/accused, she was put under arrest. Therefore, in view of
the same, Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlarging
the applicant/accused on bail.
5.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the applicant/accused has played a
significant role for the escape of main accused i.e. her husband.
Further, upon search of residence the muddemal as alleged was duly
recovered and seized. Further, the remnant muddemal is yet to be
recovered and if the applicant/accused is enlarged on bail, she might
dispose
of
the
same.

Prosecution
further
apprehends
for
abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening to prosecution
witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of
application.

Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.76/2024.
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.

7.

It palpably evinces to myself that, the applicant/accused is
assigned with the role of ventilating the escape of the prime accused
i.e. her husband.

It is pertinent that, the quantum of seized
muddemal upon the search of residence prima-facie fortifies the
theory of prosecution. The prosecution also has brought on record
the CDR, wherein the applicant/accused apart from her husband is
well acquainted and connected with the other co-accused. Therefore,
the apparent participation of the applicant/accused can be well
located and this ipso-facto disentitles the applicant/accused from any
such relief of enlargement on bail.
8.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

9.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant it is palpably clear that, the factum of recovery
is not denied, but is assigned with a reason of planting, which of
course is an aspect to be dealt during the regular course of trial.
Considering the fact that, the applicant/accused is well connected
with the co-accused and the same can be ascertained from the CDR
as collected by the prosecution. There is every possibility that, the
applicant/accused might tamper with the evidence and therefore I do
not find this as a fit case for grant of bail. Investigation is at nascent
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.76/2024.
stage and granting of such relief will naturally derail the momentum
of investigation. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the
application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.76/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 15.01.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.01.17
13:14:32 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 15.01.2024.
Transcribed on : 15.01.2024.
HHJ signed on : 17.01.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.76/2024.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
17.01.2024
01.14 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
15.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
17.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
17.01.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6