BA 1836/2022
1
MHCC020099762022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1836 OF 2022
(CNR NO.MHCC02­009976­2022)
IN
C.R.NO.03 OF 2022
Payal Sikandar Shaikh alias
Payal Ashik
Aged about 18 years, Occ – Housewife
Having address at, Flat No.1201,
Building No.1B, Versova Samarth
Darshan CHS Ltd, Near
Lokhandwala Circle,
Andheri – West, Mumbai – 400 053
And
Having Permanent address at
Village Madhab Pasha, Thana
Kalia, District – Narail
Bangladesh
….Applicant/Accused
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
Through Anti­Terrorism Squad
(ATS), Juhu Branch, having
address Andheri West,
Mumbai – 400 049
…. Respondent.

BA 1836/2022
2
Advocate Mr. Premal Krishnan a/w advocate Mr. Abhishek Thoke and
Advocate Mr. Prashant Bothre i/b Pan India Legal Service LLP for
applicant/accused
APP Mr. S.V.Keknis for State.

CORAM:
HH THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SMT.C.V.PATIL
(Court Room No.27)
DATE : 01st October, 2022.
ORDER
1.

The said application is filed by accused Payal Sikandar Shaikh alias
Payal Ashik u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. and requested for regular bail. The
applicant submitted that she has been falsely implicated. Actually the
offence is committed by Rupesh Chaudhari, Raju Shaikh and others but the
applicant is falsely implicated. The applicant has mentioned her long story
in the application to show that how the sister­in­law of applicant was
harassed by Rupesh Chaudhari and Raju Shaikh. Actually the said sister­in­
law is victim at the hands of two plus others. Though she has been falsely
implicated. As per statement of applicant Rupesh Chaudhari is husband of
her sister­in­law. He has managed for preparing false documents and he
allowed his wife to bring her relatives from Bangladesh. In short the
applicant has given focus on the statement that her sister­in­law is victim
at the hands of Rupesh Chaudhari. He has managed everything about
passport, aadhar card etc., and therefore instead of citing him as accused
the police have cited him as witness. The accused has submitted that
Rupesh Chaudhari is accused. He has managed everything. He has
prepared false documents and on these grounds the applicant is asking for
BA 1836/2022
3
bail. The applicant further submitted that from the said wedlock with
Rupesh Chaudhari one child is begotten to her sister­in­law. With these
grounds the applicant requested for bail.
2.

APP/I.O. has filed reply at Exh.2. The I.O. has mentioned short
summary of the allegations and opposed bail application on the ground
that the accused is citizen of Bangladesh. She has illegally entered in India
and was staying in India. The said accused has prepared false/forged
aadhar card, pan card, school leaving certificate and on that basis she has
obtained passport. Said applicant is sister­in­law of main accused. With the
help of her sister­in­law she migrate illegally from Bangladesh to India.
The I.O. further objected that the accused is not Indian citizen. She do not
have any relative in India and in such circumstance if the accused released
on bail then she would abscond from India and trial would be held up.
3.

C.R.No.03/2022 is registered against this accused alongwith others
for the offence punishable u/s. 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, 420 r.w. 34 of the
IPC with Kalachowki police station. Now charge­sheet is filed, same is
pending before the Court which is bearing no.PW/434/2022. From the
offences alleged against accused it appears that all the offences are triable
by learned Magistrate. In the argument the advocate for accused submitted
that the said offence is neither punishable with death nor with
imprisonment for life. Therefore accused is entitled for bail. For granting
bail only question is material that the offence is non­bailable and nature of
offence is important. The question how much punishment is provided for
the offence is not material. Copy of charge­sheet produced on record. It
BA 1836/2022
4
appears that charge­sheet is already filed which is pending before the
Court. The accused had given much emphasis to show that sister­in­law of
applicant is wife of Rupesh Chaudhari and the advocate of accused
referred leave and license agreement which is at page no.304 in the
compilation. The said agreement is prepared between Ruchi Ramesh
Razdan and Rupesh Prabhakar Chaudhari. The address is Flat no.1201,
Building no.1B, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai. The advocate of accused
submitted that accused is arrested from the same address. On perusal of
copy of charge­sheet it appears that the accused is arrested from the said
address. The report of the I.O. further disclose that the accused sister­in­
law of applicant has bring her two relatives i.e. by name Payal present
applicant and Ashif. In the statement made by main accused in the
application she has also admitted that as per say of Rupesh Chaudhari for
taking care of the child as well as her care, she has bring her brother and
sister­in­law i.e. Payal and Ashif whose bail applications are also pending
before this Court. In the application itself applicant admitted that she is
from Bangladesh. She has not obtained Indian citizenship but whatever
documents are prepared i.e. aadhar card, school leaving certificate etc., are
prepared by Rupesh Chaudhari and therefore she do not know how she
has prepared documents and therefore prima facie Rupesh Chaudhari is
main culprit in the commission of crime.
4.

For the sake of moment as per statement of applicant if we presume
that all forged documents are prepared at the instance of Rupesh
Chaudhari. But applicant herself know the fact that she is not Indian
citizen. When the said accused was not having documents on which she
BA 1836/2022
5
travel from Bangladesh to Mumbai then why she has not asked question to
Rupesh how he has prepared documents. This shows prima facie
involvement of accused in the commission of offence. This observation is
only for bail. She had allegations that Rupesh Chaudhari is influential
person therefore police have cited him as witness instead of accused. In the
compilation of charge­sheet the statement of Rupesh Chaudhari is on
record. From the statement of Rupesh Chaudhari it appears that he is in
acquaintance with this accused. He has also paid expenses for preparing
passport as well as for her maintenance. Though prima facie it appears
that there is some substance in the contention of application. But it is to be
noted that anyone can cited as accused at the time of trial also. Now
though Rupesh Chaudhari is cited as witness but during trial real facts
would come on record. Thereafter also the Court can add someone if he
found involved in the commission of offence. However just police have
cited Rupesh Chaudhari as witness. The said accused is not entitled for
bail. On the contrary whether she is entitled for bail this fact needs to be
considered on merit. It is discussed in earlier para that prima facie there is
involvement of this accused. Therefore principle of parity is also not
applicable.
5.

The report of the I.O. disclosed that the accused is Bangladeshi. With
the help of Indian citizen and Bangladeshi citizen main accused used to
migrate Bangladeshi into India illegally. Accordingly this accused also
illegally migrate in India with the help of main accused. Main accused also
used to prepare forged documents of the Bangladesh citizen for their
migration in India. Considering allegations its nature is serious one. The
said accused do not have residence in India. Therefore if the accused
BA 1836/2022
6
released on bail during pendency of trial then she would migrate to
Bangladesh. Accordingly following order is passed.

ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.1836/2022 is rejected
2.

Thus, Criminal Bail Application No.1836/2022 stands disposed of.

01/10/2022
Date of Dictation
: 01/10/2022
Date of Transcription : 03/10/2022
Date of signature
: 04/10/2022
(Smt.C.V.Patil)
Addl.Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai
BA 1836/2022
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
06/10/2022 11.00 a.m.

Mrs. M.S. Putta
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil (CR 27)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of
01/10/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on
04/10/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on
06/10/2022