1
B.A.608/24
MHCC020039872024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.608 OF 2024
Rakesh Anandkumar Kedia
Age 56 years, Occ : Business,
Residing at D/83, Rustomji Royal,
J.K. Road, Dahisar West, Mumbai
… Applicant
– Versus The State of Maharashtra
(Through DCB CID Unit-9,
C.R.No.09 of 2024
(Corresponding C.R.No.109/2024,
Bandra Police Station)
.… Respondent
Appearance :Advocate Jagdish Choudhary i/b Nankani Associates for the applicant.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 12/03/2024
ORDER
This is bail application by the accused u/sec.439 of
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with
C.R.No.09/2024
registered
with
DCB
CID,
Unit-9,
Mumbai
(Corresponding C.R.No.109/2024, Bandra Police Station) for the
commission of offences punishable u/sec. 386, 387, 506(II), 120-B of
The Indian Penal Code.

2
2.

B.A.608/24
It is alleged by the applicant / accused that he is innocent
and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is arrested on
21.01.2024. He has undergone custodial interrogation. There is no
criminal antecedents against him. The applicant is ready to co-operate
with the investigation agency. Therefore, there is no point in keeping
accused behind bars. He is a permanent resident of his given address
therefore applicant / accused prayed for releasing him on bail.
3.

The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply
vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is
released on bail it will affect on the collection of evidence. If the
accused is released on bail there are chances of flee away from justice.
If the accused is released on bail there are chances of threatening of
prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence,
prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.
4.

Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard
the ld. Advocate for the applicants, ld. APP for the respondent / State.
5.

I have gone through the documents on record. It is the case
of the prosecution that the informant is in the business of construction.
The accused Satish Dhanuka is the proprietor of M/s. Satish Enterprises
and is also in the business of real estate. One Ambedkar Nagar
Cooperative Society had entered into agreement with the accused firm.
There was agreement between the accused Satish Dhanuka and the
informant. It was agreed to pay sum of Rs.41,00,75,000/- to the
accused Satish Dhanuka, out of which only Rs.8.10 crores was paid by
the informant’s company to the accused Satish Dhanuka. Said
development proposal was terminated by the said Co-operative Society.

3
B.A.608/24
Deed of cancellation was executed. Thereafter said Ambedkar Nagar
Cooperative society approached to the first informant for redevelopment. Around 15 to 20 days before the present FIR the
informant came to know about the complaint lodged against him by the
accused Satish Dhanuka at economic offences wing Mumbai. It is
further allegation in the report that on 06.01.2024 at about 9.00 p.m.
the first informant received WhatsApp call of unknown person asking to
settle the dispute pending with the accused Satish Dhanuka otherwise
informant will be required to face E.D. proceeding.
6.

It is further alleged in the FIR that on 07.01.2024 the
informant’s friend Mr. Pankaj called him and informed that ED is likely
to start proceeding against him and therefore the informant should talk
to Pankaj’s friend Mr. Sandeep. Thereafter, there was conference call
between them. Said Sandeep represented that he had contact with E.D.
Officers and he will arrange the meeting. Accordingly, the meeting was
scheduled on 10.01.2024 at hotel Trident. The location thereafter was
changed to Starbucks Coffee at Nariman Point. It is alleged that there
were six persons joined the meeting including the applicant. It is alleged
that Satish Dhanuka in the said meeting demanded Rs.164 crores by
way of extortion. He threatened that if the demand is not satisfied, the
informant will face the consequences. It is alleged that he threatened to
kill the informant. Accordingly, the report is lodged, some of the
accused including the applicant have been arrested.
7.

It is the contention of the applicant / accused that he is the
relative of Mr. Satish Dhanuka. As per the prosecution the role
attributed to the present applicant is that he attended meeting held
between accused Satish Dhanuka and the informant. It is alleged that in
4
B.A.608/24
the said meeting accused Satish Dhanuka threatened the informant for
extortion. I have gone through the observation made in the order
granting anticipatory bail to the accused Satish Dhanuka. The alleged
demand arise out of previous monetary transactions. The present
applicant / accused has been arrested on 21.01.2024. Since then he is
behind bars. No recovery is pending against him. Investigation against
him appears to have been completed. Considering the limited role
attributed to him, further incarceration is unwarranted. His presence
can be secured with reasonable conditions as to attendance. Hence, the
applicant / accused is entitled for the bail. In the result, I pass the
following order :
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.608 of 2024 is allowed.

2.

The Applicant / Accused Rakesh Anandkumar Kedia, arrested in
C.R.No.09/2024
(Correspondent
C.R.No.109/2024
Bandra
Police
Station), Mumbai under Section 386,387,506(II),120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, registered with DCB CID Unit-9 be released on bail on
furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties.
3.

The applicant / accused shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence in any manner.
4.

The applicant / accused shall attend the said police station on 2 nd
Saturday of every month between 11:00 am. to 02:00 p.m. till filing of
the charge sheet.
5.

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
6.

B.A.608/24
The applicant / accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
7.

Bail before the concern Magistrate.

Date : 12/03/2024
Dictated on
Transcribe on
Signed by HHJ on
: 12.03.2024
: 13.03.2024
: 14.03.2024
( RAJESH A. SASNE)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

6
B.A.608/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
15/03/2023
5.43 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri.
Room No.)
R.A. SASNE, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 12/03/2023
ORDER signed by P.O. on
14/03/2023
ORDER uploaded on
15/03/2023