Cri.B.A.No. 435 of 2024
1
Order.

MHCC020029392024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 20-02-2024
: 20-02-2024
: 29-02-2024
: 0 years, 0 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY,
AT MUMBAI.
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 435 OF 2024
Rajkumar Niranjan Lal
Aged – 52, Occ- Service
Residing at-C-1/84, Gali no. 7,
Ramesh Enclev, Kirari Suleman Nagar
North West Delhi, Delhi-110086
…Applicant/Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Sr. Inspector of
Police, DCB, CID Unit 3
C.R.No. 3/2023)
(Wadala Police Station, C.R.No. 5/2023)
…Respondent/Complainant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI S.D.KULKARNI,
ADHOC ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 29th FEBRUARY, 2024.
Anees Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Shri Lade, APP for the State/Respondent.
ORDER
1.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code
Cri.B.A.No. 435 of 2024
2
Order.

of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for releasing applicant/accused on bail
in C.R.No. 3/2023 of DCB CID Unit-III (Wadala Police Station, C.R.No.
5/2023) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 419,
420, 120(B), 201 read with 34 of IPC and section 66 (C) and 66 (D) of
IT Act.
2.

It is alleged by the applicant/accused that he is innocent
and falsely implicated in the present case. He is a permanent resident of
North West Delhi, therefore it is not possible for him to abscond or there
are no chances of flee from justice. The accused is merely implicated in
the present case on the basis of doubt and suspicion. Applicant/accused
has not played any role in commission of offence. He did not have any
role in the management and operation of the company in question. The
applicant/accused never cheat either informant or witnesses therefore
section 420 of IPC is not applicable to him. The investigation is
completed and police has filed charge-sheet in the court. The
applicant/accused was arrested on 14/08/2023 he has undergone the
custodial interrogation till 18/08/2023 since then he is Judicial
Custody. Near about 20 co-accused are already released on bail,
therefore on the ground of parity applicant/accused is entitled to be
released on bail. The accused is neither the employee nor the employer
of the Trade Global Market Call Center. Nothing remains to be seized
from his possession, therefore applicant/accused prayed for releasing
him on bail.
3.

The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply
vide Exh.2. The contention of the prosecution that accused has played
the major role in the commission of offence. During the investigation it
reveals that huge amount of bank transaction noticed in the bank
Cri.B.A.No. 435 of 2024
3
Order.

account of accused. The investigation officer also noticed that the
amount received from the victim was transferred in the bank account of
applicant/accused. So Applicant is direct beneficiary of the Crime. The
accused person used to provide advance information to their customers
about, which company’s shares and stock would be increasing. They had
different packages of amount and used to induce customers to transfer
money into their trading account. By such way accused person used
take money in American Dollars from the customers without having any
valid license. The accused is resident of other state, therefore if released
on bail there is possibility of absconding of accused. There is also
probability of tampering prosecution evidence and threatening
prosecution witnesses. Hence prosecution prayed for rejection of bail
application.
4.

Perused application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard
both advocates at length.
5.

The advocate for the applicant/accused submitted that
since last more than six months accused is in judicial custody.
Investigation is completed and police have filed charge-sheet in the
court. Therefore there is no possibility at all of tampering prosecution
evidence. The applicant/accused relied on the ratio laid down in the
case of P. Chidambaram V/s. Central Bureau of investigation CR-Appeal
no. 1603 of 2019 dated 22/10/2019. Therein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that “There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to
grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and
circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The
discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and
not in an arbitrary manner.”.

Cri.B.A.No. 435 of 2024
6.

4
Order.

I have gone through the First Information Report (F.I.R.),
statement of witnesses, the documents seized by the police from
accused persons. The allegation against the accused is that the accused
persons deceived the needy people who wants to invest in company
shares and stock market could be increasing on the basis of information
given by accused person. The accused was running Trade Global Market
Call Center without valid license.
7.

I have gone through the reply filed by the prosecution.

Therein it is mentioned by the prosecution that the applicant/accused is
resident of Delhi, therefore, there are chances of flee from justice and
absconding. The another objection of prosecution is that some amount
was transferred in the bank account of applicant/accused from the
various accounts and it is to be seized. It is further alleged that detailed
investigation is necessary considering the nature of the crime, hence
prayed for rejection of bail. It is a matter of record that
applicant/accused was arrested on 14/08/2023. He has undergone
police custody and since 18/08/2023 he is in judicial custody. So
sufficient time or opportunity available for the investigation officer to
seize whatever remains to be seized from the applicant/accused. Only
the accused is resident of Delhi cannot be a ground to refuse bail. So
also
to
seize
the
amount
custodial
interrogation
of
the
applicant/accused is not necessary. The investigation officer has filed
the charge-sheet in the court. So entire investigation is completed and
only to seize amount keeping accused in judicial custody is not just and
proper. The applicant/accused is in judicial custody since long. So it will
take considerable time to commence and conclude the trial. It is not just
and proper to keep the accused behind the bar till conclusion of trial.
The co-accused are already released on bail. Those are found at the spot
Cri.B.A.No. 435 of 2024
5
Order.

of incident at time of commission of offence. The role of the present
accused is limited to the extent that co-accused has transferred amount
in his bank account and he again re-transferred that amount to other
persons. So considering the role played by accused in the commission of
offence and considering the fact that co-accused already released on
bail, therefore, in my opinion, accused is entitled to be released on the
bail. Considering this, I pass the following order :
– ORDER 1.

Bail Application No. 435/2024 is allowed.

2.
Applicant/accused Rajkumar Niranjan Lal arrested in C.R.No.
3/2023 of DCB CID Unit-III (Wadala Police Station, C.R.No. 5/2023) for
the commission of offense punishable under Section 419, 420, 120(B),
201 read with 34 of IPC and section 66 (C) and 66 (D) of IT Act be
released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- with one or
more surety/ies in the like amount.
3.
The applicant/accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses
and evidence in any manner.
4.
Provisional cash bail in the like amount is allowed. The accused
shall furnish surety within 4 weeks from the date of release from jail
failing which the cash bail shall stand forfeited without any separate
order to that effect.
5.
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
6.
The applicant/accused is directed not to involve in similar types
of offense in future.
7.

Bail before the learned Trial Court.

Date : 29/02/2024
(S.D.KULKARNI)
Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Mumbai.

Cri.B.A.No. 435 of 2024
1. Dictated online on
2. Placed for correction on
3. Checked on
4. Correction carried on
5. Signed on
6. Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
6
Order.

: 29/02/2024.
: 05/03/2024.
: 05/03/2024.
: 05/03/2024.
: 05/03/2024.
:
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
05/03/2024. 5.55 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Miss M.A.Kulkarni.

Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

HHJ Shri S.D.Kulkarni.
(Court Room No.66).

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 29/02/2024.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
05/03/2024.

Judgment/Order uploaded on
05/03/2024.