Bail Application No.399/2024.
MHCC020027482024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 399 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 337 OF 2023.

Raja Naikar @ Raja Venu Manikam Nadar
@ K. D. Raja
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Wadala T. T. Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.337/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Ms. Tripti R. Shetty for the Applicant/accused.
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 : 01ST MARCH, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Raja Naikar @ Raja Venu
Manikam Nadar @ K. D. Raja being accused in C.R.No.337/2023
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.399/2024.
registered with Wadala T. T. Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 392, 506(2), 447, 431, 283, 268 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) alongwith Section 37
(1)(a), 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, seeks bail under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short,
“CrPC”). This is an application preferred by the applicant/accused
post filing of charge-sheet.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

For the purposes of convenience the facts stated while
deciding the application on earlier occasion are reproduced. It is the
case of the prosecution that, as on 24.10.2023, at about 6.15 hours,
near the monorail pillar No.25 point No.1, behind Atomic depot,
Wadala East, Mumbai, wherein the informant is serving. At that time,
while the informant at the site, K.D. Raja and his aides, threatened
the informant at the point of knife, and unloaded the dumper mud at
the sight and encroached upon the site. Further K.D. Raja forcibly
seized and snatched a sum of Rs. 700/- from the informant in
connivance with the co-accused. Thus, offence was lodged under the
sections ibid.

3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated, investigation has concluded,
recovery is already effected and charge-sheet has been filed in the
matter. Further, the presence of the applicant/accused is not located
as charge-sheet is not appended with such CCTV Footage. Further,
prosecution has drafted a concocted version as it cannot be believed
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.399/2024.
that, the applicant/accused took out knife from his pocket as the
length of the knife is stated as 26 cm. Also, that post snatching the
mobile and cash the applicant/accused is stated to have returned
back the mobile phone which is an unbelievable version. Further,
recovery panchnama is falsely added in the charge-sheet. Thus the
Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused states that further custodial
detention is not necessitated. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant
prayed for enlarging the applicant on bail.
4.

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, in spite of the fact that the
applicant/accused was facing externment action still he entered in
the area prohibited to him and committed an offence of robbery.
Further the investigation is under progress. The prosecution also has
brought on record the 23 criminal antecedents to the discredit of the
applicant/accused. It is stated that, the recovery of the weapon i.e.
knife used during the commission of offence is effected under
memorandum panchnama based upon the disclosure statement made
by the applicant/accused. Ld. Prosecutor further apprehends for
abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening to prosecution
witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of
application.

5.

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

Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.399/2024.

6.

On meticulous examination of case record, it palpably
evinces to myself that the applicant/accused now states that, his
presence cannot be located as CCTV Footage is not appended
alongwith
charge-sheet
propelling
for
the
presence
of
the
applicant/accused. This contention in particular cannot be a reason
for enlargement as on the earlier occasion the applicant/accused had
failed to deny for such presence at the spot. Apart from the same, it
is evident that, the applicant/accused himself voluntarily made a
disclosure statement and based upon the same, recovery of knife qua
the weapon used for commission of crime alongwith Indian Currency
to the tune of Rs.500/- were seized under memorandum panchnama.
This ipso-facto dis-entitles the applicant/accused for any such relief
of enlargement on bail.
7.

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.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant it is palpably clear that, the applicant/accused
himself has upon memorandum stated for such disclosure statement
against which recovery of weapon was effected. Therefore, the active
participation of
the applicant/accused is apparently
located.

Therefore, there is every possibility that, the applicant/accused might
tamper the prosecution evidence. Apart from the same, as stated
supra, there is an abysmal track record to the discredit of the
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.399/2024.
applicant/accused. Therefore, I do not find this as a fit case for grant
of bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.399/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 01.03.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.03.02
17:43:40 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 01.03.2024.
Transcribed on : 01.03.2024.
HHJ signed on : 02.03.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.399/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
02.03.2024
05.43 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
01.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
02.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
02.03.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6