Bail Application No.450/2024.
MHCC020030272024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 450 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 155 OF 2023.

Sandeep Anand Gundlapelli.

…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Sion Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.155/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Salvi for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By
this
application
the
applicant
Sandeep
Anand
Gundlapelli being accused in C.R.No.155/2023 registered with Sion
Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.450/2024.
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
465, 467, 468 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 the case of the prosecution that, the informant was
searching for a new house and her matrimonial uncle introduced the
applicant/accused
No.1
to
the
informant.

Thereafter,
the
applicant/accused No.1 appraised her about a MHADA Flat at a low
price and immediately the informant chose to select one flat in the
MIG Scheme. Applicant/accused No.1 appraised her of the
consideration to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- inclusive of all charges
and also told that, Rs.15,200/- demand draft in the name of MHADA
and Rs.5,00,000/- against commission to him were to be paid in
advance.
3.

Thereafter, the informant was taken to a building 24
storeyed, Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, wherein applicant/accused No.2 also
accompanied him. The informant accordingly took three flats in the
name of herself, her husband and her brother-in-law and accordingly
payment was made to the applicant/accused. There was also an
agreement made for a period commencing from 2015 until 2019
which was titled as a friendly loan agreement. The transaction trails
since 2015 andon one or other ground till date an amount of
Rs.28,20,600/-
were
paid
by
the
informant
out
of
which
Rs.15,45,000/- were paid in cash. Thereafter the informant and her
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.450/2024.
relatives are not handed over the alleged premises, nor the amount is
returned back to them. Hence, the informant lodged complaint and
offence was registered under Sections ibid.
4.

Ld. Advocate for applicants/accused state that, the
applicants are falsely implicated and that the FIR is registered against
three person and that, the applicant/accused No.2 is working under
applicant/accused No.1. It is stated that, applicant/accused No.1 is a
Real Estate Agent and the informant have entered into a friendly loan
agreement with the applicant/accused No.1 and against which the
informant was getting such monetary benefit as decided between
either of them. It is also stated that, the applicant/accused No.1 gave
cheques against security for the said amount, in case of failure of
repayment. It is further stated that, the applicant/accused have not
tendered any fabricated letter to the informant. It is stated that the
applicant/accused is attributed with the role of receiving such
amount in his account at the instance of co-accused and that he had
witnessed to the alleged forged agreement. Further none of the
witnesses have alleged for the role of the applicant/accused. Also that
the investigation has concluded and charge-sheet has been filed in
the matter. Lastly, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused states that
as the applicant/accused had preferred for a conjoint application with
that of the co-accused on the earlier occasion and the same was
rejected wherein the allegations against the applicant/accused were
painted
with
same
brush.

Hence,
the
Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant/accused prayed for enlarging the applicant/accused on
bail.

Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.450/2024.
5.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor have filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It
is
categorically
stated
that,
the
co-accused
alongwith
applicant/accused have obtained such large sums from various
individuals. Correspondence from the IT department pertaining to
the income and properties of the accused person is awaited. Further,
the Prosecutor apprehends abscondance, tampering of evidence and
threatening to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor
prayed for rejection of application.
6.

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

7.

On copious perusal of the case record, it palpably evinces to
myself that, applicant/accused admits for such receipt of payment
from the informant and her relatives, but he states that the coaccused has apprised him that the co-accused has made part payment
as well as paid the interest amount. Furthermore, it is also evident
that, the applicant has categorically stated for such financial
transaction, wherein the informant have allegedly investigated such
sum. Further, during the course of investigation the investigating
officer has produced a letter received from the authority qua MHADA
which states for no such document has tendered by the co-accused to
the informant were issued by MHADA. Therefore, the factum of
forgery and the ingredients as under Section 467 in prima-facie are
well located with regard the co-accused Krishna Tari.

As stated
supra, when the applicant/accused themselves admit for such sum
being invested by the informant and her relatives and, although
Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.450/2024.
applicant/accused state that, a part payment alongwith the interest
was repaid to the informant and her relatives, it well propels for
entrustment and usage of such sum co-accused.
8.

Furthermore, the applicant/accused in this regard has been
shown with the specific role of facilitation and that he being a
witness to the document. Apart from the same, the prosecution also
has stated for general reasons for resisting the bail application, and
that the said apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by
saddling stringent conditions on the applicant/accused including
marking of his presence before the respondent agency. In the
backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application deserves no
consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.450/2024 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Sandeep Anand Gundlapelli
being accused in C.R.No.155/2023 registered with
Sion Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 of Indian
Penal Code, be released on furnishing P. R. bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with
one or two sureties in the like amount.
3. The applicant/accused and his sureties shall
provide their respective residential addresses,
mobile numbers and email addresses, if any. The
applicant/accused shall intimate any such change in
address or telephone number and Email ID
forthwith.
4. The applicant/accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.450/2024.
to any person acquainted with the facts of the
present case to dissuade them from disclosing such
facts to the Court.
5. The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
6. The applicant/accused shall attend the Sion Police
Station on every Tuesday and Friday between 11.00
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. until further order.
7. The applicant/accused shall surrender his passport
if any with the investigating officer. If the applicant
doesn’t have passport, he will furnish an affidavit to
that effect.
8. The applicant/accused shall not leave India without
permission of this Court.
9. Any breach of the conditions in this bail order shall
entail cancellation of bail forthwith.
10.Bail Application No.450/2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 29.02.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.03.01
15:55:38 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 29.02.2024.
Transcribed on : 29.02.2024.
HHJ signed on : 01.03.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.450/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
01.03.2024
03.55 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
29.02.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
01.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
01.03.2024
uploaded
Page 7 of 7