BA 106/22
1
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION 106 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020005262022 )
Sandeep Dashrath Choube,
Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Business,
R/at. Flat No. 704, C Wing,
Ashlay Garden Buidling,
Kanakia Mira Road (E), Thane
…Applicant/Accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
( At the instance of Ghatkopar Police
Station vide MECR No. 1/21)
…Respondent/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Shivaji Farakate, Advocate for the applicant/Accused.
Smt. Seema Deshpande, Addl. PP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT (C.R.60)
DATE : 07.03.2022
ORDER
1.
Vide present application under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant requested to release him on bail in
MECR No. 1/21 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 403, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506,
120B r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Parag,
accused Jayashree and accused Bhavin on different false pretext
deceived the informant and induced him to pay Rs.63,93,500/ to them.
BA 106/22
2
ORDER
However, they repaid only Rs.46,03,000/ and failed to repay the
amount of Rs.14,90,500/. In order to discharge the said amount, the
accused Parag, additionally obtained Rs.12,09,500/ from the informant
and agreed to give his flat at Kalyan to the informant. However, it was
found that the said flat was already mortgaged. Again the accused
Parag for discharge of the total amount of Rs.27,00,000/, executed
Memorandum of Understanding in favour of the informant. The
Memorandum of Understanding was also executed by the present
applicant as owner although it was already sold to someone else. Thus,
the accused committed criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery.
3.
The learned advocate on behalf of the applicant argued
that the present applicant is not connected with the informant and he
was not part of the transaction of payment of amount by the informant
to the accused. The applicant denied signature on the Memorandum of
Understanding. No further custody of the applicant is required. Other
accused have been released on bail. Therefore, he requested to allow
the application.
4.
On the other hand, learned APP argued that the applicant
though executed Memorandum of Understanding, he did not disclose
the real transaction to the informant about the earlier sale. There is
material against the applicant. Therefore, she requested to reject the
application.
5.
It appears that the applicant is not the person to whom the
informant had made any payment out of Rs.63,93,500/. The applicant
is not the person involved in the basic transaction of payment of said
amount by the informant to the accused. The only allegation against the
BA 106/22
3
ORDER
applicant is that he executed the Memorandum of Understanding
concealing the earlier transaction and thus committed forgery. It may
be noted here that the applicant has denied that he executed the
Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, whether the said document
has been forged by the applicant or not is he question of trial. At
present it has to be taken into consideration that the same document
has been seized. Police custody period of the applicant is already over.
Chargesheet has already been filed against the applicant. No propriety
to detain the applicant for further period particularly when it is
indefinite as to when the trial will start. Continuing detention of the
applicant for indefinite period will amount to punitive detention
without adjudication of trial, which is impermissible. Accused Parag,
accused Jayashree and accused Bhavin have already been released on
bail. Considering all these circumstances, it is just and proper to allow
the application subject to certain conditions. Hence, order as follows is
passed:
:ORDER:
1. The Bail Application No.106 of 2022 is allowed as under.
2. The applicant accused namely Sandeep Dashrath Choube be
released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/ and one or
two solvent sureties of the same amount in MECR No. 1/21 registered
at Ghatkopar Police Station.
3.
Cash security of Rs.20,000/ is permitted provisionally for the
period of 1 month in lieu of the surety bond.
4
The accused shall attend the Ghatkopar Police Station on every
Monday in between 10.00 am to 12.00 pm till filing of the chargesheet.
5.
The accused shall submit a list of atleast 3 blood relatives with
their detailed residential addresses and also the addresses of their place
of work if any, and documentary proof of showing the correctness of the
BA 106/22
4
ORDER
details provided by them.
6.
The accused and the surety shall inform the police authorities as
well as the trial court, the change of their residential address while the
accused is on bail.
7.
The accused shall submit copies of at least 2 documents amongst
the Pan Card, Adhar card, Ration card, Electricity Bill, Voter ID card
issued by the election commission or the documents in respect of
immovable properties owned by him.
8.
After submission of the documents as mentioned above, the
Investigating Officer shall conduct physical verification of the residential
address so as to confirm the address appearing on those documents.
9.
The accused shall not make any inducement or threat to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with
the evidence.
10.
The accused shall not leave territorial limits of India without prior
permission of the court.
11.
Conditions No. 5 to 8 shall be complied with simultaneous to the
furnishing of the cash security or the surety bond whichever is earlier.
12.
Bail before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
LAXMANRAO
DEEPAK
BHAGWAT
LAXMANRAO
Date:
BHAGWAT
2022.03.08
16:06:41
+0530
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
Addl. Session Judge
Sessions Court,
Mumbai. C.R. 60
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 07.03.2022
: 07.03.2022
: 08.03.2022
BA 106/22
5
ORDER
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.03.2022, 04.30 pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. Revati V. Kadam
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
No.)
HHJ Deepak L. Bhagwat,(C.R.No.60)
Addl. Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order
07.03.2022
Order signed by P.O. on
08.03.2022
order uploaded on
08.03.2022