:1:
Order on BA No.403/24
MHCC020027652024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.24 of 2024
1. Mr. Raju Shankar Panchal
Age : 59 years, Occ : Service
2. Mrs. Mangala Raju Panchal
Age : 53 years, Occ : House wife
Both are s/o Shankar Panchal,
0192/16, Chamunda Nagar, Menan College,
Veer Savarkar Marg, Chamunda Mandir,
Bhandup (E), Mumbai-400042.

]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
3. Mrs. Meenakshi ORG Manisha Suresh Pawar
Age : 30 years, Occ : House wife
Residing at D/o Sitaram Yadav,
K-10/217 Om Sai Kripa Society,
Station Road, MMRDA Vasahat,
Kanjur Marg (W), Mumbai-40078.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Kanjur Marg Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Rao Ranjeet Shripat for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 26th February, 2024.

:2:
Order on BA No.403/24
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant No. 1. Mr.
Raju Shankar Panchal, Applicant No. 2. Mrs. Mangala Raju
Panchal, Applicant No. 3. Mrs. Meenakshi ORG Manisha Suresh
Pawar, under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 for grant of regular bail.

2.

A case being C.R. No.24 of 2024 is registered with Kanjur
Marg Police Station against the present Applicants for the offence
punishable under Sections 436, 336, 506 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”)
3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing their say at
Exhibit No.02.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
It is the case of prosecution that informant has purchased a
hut from applicant no.1 in the year 2014 for consideration of
Rs.7,00,000/-. Since past one month, all the three accused were
insisting to vacate the said hut. They are abusing and assaulting
the informant party. On 06.02.2024, at about 3.00 a.m.,
informant realized smoke at the back side of her house. She
immediately rushed towards it and saw that her house was set on
fire. She raised an alarm and made appeal to the neighboring
residents to help her. But then accused threatened them that if
anyone would help her then he will set their houses on fire like
the house of informant. Accused threatened the informant and
went away.

:3:
5.

Order on BA No.403/24
Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicants, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer and perused the papers of
investigation.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicants submitted that there is
previous enmity between the parties. They have dispute in
respect of property. Allegations in the report are baseless. There is
no eyewitness to the incident. Applicants came to be arrested on
06.02.2024. There is no recovery or discovery as such remain
from the applicants. Two applicants are ladies. Therefore, the
application be allowed and applicants be released on bail.

7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP objected the bail application on the
ground that the applicants have tendency to commit such
offences. There is a record to show that applicants used to allot
hut to needy persons and after taking substantial amount from
them, compel them to vacate the same. There are NCs registered
to that effect against applicants. Statement of witnesses support
the case of informant. Investigation is at pre-mature stage.
Therefore, application be rejected.
Reasons
8. On perusal of record it reveals that there are specific allegations
in the report that how accused party harassed the informant’s
family to vacate the hut. Ld. SPP pointed out that the said huts
are standing on the landed property owned by Government.
Applicants have no concern with them. Howsoever it may be,
prima facie evidence on record reflects that there are specific
:4:
Order on BA No.403/24
allegations about the serious offence committed by applicants.
Many
witnesses
have
supported
the
case
of
informant.

Investigation is at pre-mature stage. Recovery and discovery is to
be done. Considering the nature of accusation, it is clear that
thorough investigation is to be done. Therefore, at this stage this
bail application does not deserves consideration. Hence, the
order:
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.403 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant No. 1. Mr. Raju Shankar Panchal, Applicant No. 2. Mrs.
Mangala Raju Panchal, Applicant No. 3. Mrs. Meenakshi ORG
Manisha Suresh Pawar, in connection with C.R. No.24 of 2024 is
registered with Kanjur Marg Police Station against the present
Applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 336,
506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby
rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.403 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 26/02/2024
Mumbai
sd/(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 26/02/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 26/02/2024
:5:
Order on BA No.403/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
27.02.2024 at 10.21 a.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
26.02.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
26.02.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
27.02.2024