Bail Application No.1799/2022.
MHCC020097502022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1799 OF 2022.
IN
C.R. NO. 215 OF 2019.
Ramchandra Chinappa Pawar
… Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Nirmal Nagar Police
Station, Mumbai, Vide C.R.No. 215/2019.)
…Respondent.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. K.A. Patel for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 20TH AUGUST, 2022.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicants Ramchandra Chinappa
Pawar being accused in C.R.No. 215/2019 registered with Nirmal
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.1799/2022.
Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
467, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter
referred to as, “IPC”) seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.
It is stated that, an offence under certain sections of IPC
was registered by wired DCB CID, Mumbai under C.R. No.67/2018,
wherein the accused were enlarged on bail. In compliance of the
conditions laid by the learned Court therein, the accused had submitted
certain documents which were allegedly forged in order to facilitate
such compliance. Thus, the act of the Applicant/accused was aiding
such facilitation and cheating the court at large. It is further stated that
the establishment of the learned trial court, qua the court of learned
Metropolitan magistrate, 9th Court Bandra, Mumbai verified such
documents and it was found that several such documents where forged
accordingly a report was prepared and the learned trial court
accordingly directed the PI crime Branch, Mumbai to investigate the
matter and register offence against the concerned. Thereafter, police
initiated investigation and it was found that the Applicant accused stood
surety for Shamim Hussein Anis Rehman and Rubell Ansar Ghazi. It
also revealed that the documents were prepared by using bogus seals
and stamps. Thus, offence was registered under section ibid and
accordingly the Applicant/accused was put under arrest.
3.
Ld. advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated and is not involved in the alleged
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.1799/2022.
crime. It is further stated that the Applicant/accused merely stood as
surety only on friendly terms and it was the prime accused who has
forced all such documents and submitted them as genuine. It is further
stated that there are no antecedents to the discredit of the
Applicant/accused. In view of the same, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused prayed for enlargement of the applicant/accused on
bail.
4.
Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide exhibit
2, and inter alia have resisted the application upon various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the role of the Applicant/accused is clearly
established and there is an active involvement of the Applicant/accused
in the present crime. More especially the factum of connivance between
the either accused is established as the Applicant/accused is in habit of
forging such documents and presenting it before the authorities.
Further, the prosecution apprehends abscondance and tampering of
prosecution evidence at the hands of Applicant/accused. Lastly, the Ld.
Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
5.
Heard learned advocate for Applicant/accused, and learned
prosecutor for the state. Perused application and reply.
6.
It evinces to myself that, admittedly, the Applicant/accused
has not denied of furnishing such forged and bogus documents before
the learned court, and the defence raised in this regard is that the
Applicant/accused is unaware with regard to the tenability of the
documents, as the same were forged by the prime accused against
whom the Applicant/accused stood surety. Considering this particular
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.1799/2022.
defence, I am unable to accept the fact that the Applicant/accused was
unaware of the papers which were furnished before the court.
Moreover, prosecution has filed a chart in the reply itself which propels
for the role of the Applicant/accused wherein it was categorically
verified by the local authority that is BMC, and it revealed that the
payslip
allegedly
held
in
the
name
of
surety
that
is
the
Applicant/accused was different from that which was furnished before
the learned trial court. Therefore, in this regard when the document in
itself pertains to the Applicant/accused himself the theory laid in the
form of defence cannot be believed at this juncture.
7.
Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the primafacie case exists or
not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits
of prosecution case.
8.
Undoubtedly, it is the payslip held in the name of the
Applicant/accused and it is allegedly forged in connivance with that of
the prime accused against whom the Applicant/accused stood surety.
Therefore, the involvement of the Applicant/accused in the present
crime is apparently proved. Hence, merely because Applicant is
languishing behind bars since long does not qualify himself for such
entitlement of relief of enlargement on bail. It is evident that
investigation is still under progress and therefore I do not find this as a
fit case for grant of relief as redressed by the Applicant/accused.
Moreover, granting of such relief would naturally derail the momentum
of investigation. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, as
the application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra: –
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.1799/2022.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1799/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 20.08.2022.
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.08.23
17:01:02 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 20.08.2022.
Transcribed on : 20.08.2022.
HHJ signed on : 23.08.2022.
Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.1799/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
23.08.2022
05.00 p.m.
Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
20.08.2022
of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
23.08.2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
23.08.2022
Page 6 of 6