MHCC020009462022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.189 OF 2022
(CRIME NO.13 OF 2022, V. B. NAGAR POLICE STATION)
CNR No.MHCC02-000946-2022
Prakash Mallappa Pawar,
Aged 45 years, Occ. : Garbage Pickup,
Residing at Block No.2, Behind Shindebai
Chawl, Jay Shankar Chowk, Halav Pool,
Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070.

]
]
]
]
]
… Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
]
At the instance of V. B. Nagar Police Station ]
at C.R. No.13 of 2022.
]
… Respondent
Appearances :Mr. Sudhir Khatu, Ld. Adv. for applicant.
Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, Ld. A.P.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : PURUSHOTTAM B. JADHAV,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO.22.
DATE : 27th January, 2022.
ORDER
1.

This
is
an
application
for
regular
bail.

The
respondent/State resisted it by filing say at Exh.2. Read the application
and say. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
Addl. Sessions Judge
-2-
2.

BA 189/22
In C.R. No.13 of 2022 registered with V. B. Nagar police
station, it is alleged that the applicant and other accused have
committed offence punishable under Sections 364, 394, 348, 506(ii),
323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not the case that the
incident started with intention to rob or to extort. There is previous
dispute between both the parties. The applicant and co-accused had
been to the house of informant for asking the informant to ask one
Hiran to return the hand-loan. However, it may be noted that the
accused were armed with knives and also, assaulted the informant.
They also took away amount of Rs.3,500/- and one mobile of the
informant. These are the criminal acts. The allegations made in F.I.R.
clearly disclose the alleged offence. The offence under Section 394 of
the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life or
Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine. While offence
punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable
with same punishment. The offence is serious. The investigation is at
initial stage. Other accused are still absconding. The informant, the
witnesses and accused are known to each other. Therefore, there is
possibility of tampering of witnesses during the investigation.
Therefore, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for granting regular bail.
3.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is
marriage of daughter of the applicant on 24/02/2022 and there is no
one to look after preparation of her marriage. The regular bail cannot
be granted on such ground.
4.

In view of above discussion, the application deserves to be
rejected. Accordingly, I pass the following order :Addl. Sessions Judge
-3-
BA 189/22
ORDER
Bail Application No.189 of 2022 is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by
PURUSHOTTAM
BHAURAO
JADHAV
Date:
2022.01.28
15:45:28 +0530
( Purushottam B. Jadhav )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
GREATER MUMBAI.

Date : 27/01/2022.
Directly typed on Computer on
Printed on
Signed on
: 27/01/2022.
: 28/01/2022.
:
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
28/01/2022 at 3.45 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri. Purushottam
Room No.)
Jadhav (Court Room No.22)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 27/01/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
28/01/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
28/01/2022.

Addl. Sessions Judge
B.