Bail Application No.107/2024.
MHCC020007682024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 421 OF 2023.
Raju Devidas Manglani.

…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.421/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandit for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ishan Shrivastav for the Intervener.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Raju Devidas Manglani
being accused in C.R.No.421/2023 registered with Matunga Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468,
Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.107/2024.
471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter
referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “Cr.P.C.”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, since 27.09.2021 until
14.02.2022 accused namely Ali Raza Shaikh, Jay @ Raju Manglani
i.e. applicant/accused, Valmik Goler, Vijay Nadar and Vikrant D.
Sonawane in connivance with each other conspired and obtained the
faith of the informant and appraised the informant that he would be
exonerated from the offence registered against him. Apart from the
same, informant was also appraised of the fact that, his liquor license
would be transferred and he would also be sustained with benefits
from the APMC Market, New Bombay. Under this appraisal the
applicant alongwith the co-accused received Rs.1,95,68,000/- from
the informant and when the informant asked them for the said
amount he was threatened upon gunpoint. Accordingly, the offence
was registered under Sections ibid. Further, accused Ali Raza Shaikh
and thereafter the applicant/accused was put under arrest in the
present crime.

3.

Ld. Advocate for applicant states that, the applicant is
falsely implicated in the present crime. It is categorically stated that,
no criminal offence is made out from the substratum of FIR in the
charge-sheet.

It reflects for certain commercial transactions in
respect of which payment was made by informant to the accused
No.1, who is not at all concerned with the applicant/accused.
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.107/2024.
Further, the applicant is neither beneficiary of the amount, nor is the
case of the prosecution in view of the role attributed to the applicant.
Ingredients of sections 406 or 420 of IPC are not attracted and they
cannot be invoked simultaneously and that money was never
entrusted by the informant to the applicant/accused. Further, the
applicant/accused is arrested for the only reason that, he had
accompanied accused No.1.

Further, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused has also revealed for the fact that, amount was
received in the account of his wife and the said sum that was received
in her account was returned back to the accused No.1. The entire
substratum of the complaint is a civil dispute. 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, the applicant/accused is assigned with
the role of introducing the informant with the co-accused and has
mis-utilized the name of a minister and has used Minister’s name for
gaining confidence of the informant. Furthermore, the applicant also
has utilized the assembly house for appraising such facts in order to
gain confidence and avail monies from the various people.

The
anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant and the coaccused have been rejected by this Court.
5.

Further, such quantum of amount received by the
applicant/accused in his account and that of his wife is clearly
located during the course of investigation and it is further traces of
such received amount are yet to be gathered. Even as on today the
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.107/2024.
applicant/accused has failed to state for the reason of such receipt of
sum in his wife’s account. Therefore, in order to unveil such facts
custodial interrogation is necessitated.

Ld. Prosecutor further
apprehends for abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening
to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
6.

Ld. Advocate for intervener categorically states that, mere
filing of charge-sheet is
no change in circumstance and the said
position is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further
stated the factum of transaction and argued in congruence with that
of the Ld. Prosecutor. He also has relied upon several case laws and
finally urged for rejection of application.
7.

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

8.

Upon copious perusal of the case papers, bail application
and the appended documents it is palpably clear that, the
applicant/accused has in the application itself vide ground (a) has
specifically stated that, the accused No.1 is not at all concerned with
the applicant herein with the said crime. On the contrary the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused vehemently stated that, the said
amount received in the account of his wife was duly returned back to
accused No.1. This Court has raised a specific query as to what was
the transaction between accused No.1, that, such sum was returned
back to him through his wife’s account, upon which it is stated that, it
was a loan transaction. This answer categorically falsifies the very
Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.107/2024.
first stand of non-acquaintance of the applicant/accused with that of
co-accused.

Therefore, the said transaction is required to be
ascertained and the prosecution is thus required to be afforded with
such opportunity of investigation.
9.

As observed hereinbefore, while deciding the application on
earlier occasion, the grounds as stated by the applicant/accused with
regard to his knowledge about the transaction with the co-accused,
dishonour of cheque etc., receipt of sum in the account of his wife
propels for the prima-facie role of the applicant/accused in
commission
of
crime
and
this
ipso-facto
disentitles
the
applicant/accused from any such relief of enlargement on bail.
10.

Ld. Advocate for Intervener has filed and relied upon
following case laws which ensue as under :
1. P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 337.
2. Centrum Financial Services Limited Vs. State of
NCT Delhi And Another, (2022) 13 Supreme Court
Cases 286.
3. Virupakshappa Gouda And Another Vs. State of
Karnataka And Another, (2017) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 406.
11.

Considering the conspectus of the aforesaid case laws, I do
humbly submit that they are salutary to myself. It is pertinent that,
undoubtedly, the nature of accusation is required to be considered
alongwith the larger interest of the public or the state has to be
Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.107/2024.
considered. Further, Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused also stated
that, this being an application post filing of charge-sheet is a change
in circumstance, but in view of the case of Virupaksha Gouda
(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the position wherein
it is categorically observed that, mere filing of charge-sheet does not
in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On
the contrary in the instant case, the case of the prosecution seems to
have strengthened more.
12.

Ld. Prosecutor vehemently states that, considering the
place being chosen for appraisal and the name of a cabinet minister
being involved, the larger interest of public and their faith deserves
consideration at this juncture. Further, recovery is yet to be effected.
Therefore, I do not find this as a fit case for grant of bail and there is
every possibility that, the applicant/accused might tamper with the
prosecution evidence. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that,
the application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No. 107/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 19.01.2024.

Digitally signed by DR.
ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.01.20
16:52:20 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 19.01.2024.
Transcribed on : 19.01.2024.
HHJ signed on : 20.01.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.107/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
20.01.2024
04.51 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
19.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
20.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
20.01.2024
uploaded
Page 7 of 7