MHCC020055162024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 870 OF 2024
Sanjay Dhanaji Kamble,
Age : 51 year, Occp : Service,
R/o : Room No.6, Shinde Building Compound,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai-400013
…
Applicant
…
Respondent
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Police Station,
Dadar,
C.R.No.42/2023)
Appearance:
Mr. Sameer Pradhan, Ld. Adv. for applicant.
Mr. J.N. Suryawanshi, Ld. Addl. P.P.
CORAM :
DATE :
HIS HONOUR ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE M. G. DESHPANDE
(C.R.No.16)
April 22, 2024
ORDER
1.

Applicant Sanjay Kamble is one of the accused persons in
C.R.42/2023 registered with Dadar Police Station under Ss. 420, 406,
465, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC. He has prayed for grant of bail contending
that, he is entitled to the parity with Sandeep Gopinath Surve, whom
.. 2..

BA No.870/2024
the Court recently granted bail. It is also contended that, the applicant
had received Rs.15 Lakh and also repaid Rs.10 Lakh thereof. The
applicant attributes the same role that of Sandeep Gopinath Surve and
the view taken by this Court while allowing the application of Sandeep
Surve is equally applicable to this applicant. With this, it is contended
to allow the application.
2.

Prosecution vide say (Exh.2) of Investigating Officer
strongly opposed the application on following grounds,
i
The applicant has confessed having received money from
the informant.

ii He also confessed that, he and his associates prepared
bogus documents of year 1995 for the informant and
witnesses and further submitted the same in Municipal
Corporation through Chandrakant Chavan.
iii The applicant was in service of Municipal Corporation. If
he is released on bail, he will tamper and cause
disappearance of the evidence.
iv The applicant knows whereabouts of absconding accused
and if granted bail would likely to help him for remaining
away from the case.
v There are 4 antecedents against the applicant which are of
serious nature.
vi The applicant has confessed having received money from
the informant.
vii If bail is granted, applicant would threaten/entice the
prosecution witnesses.
With this, it is contended to reject the application.
3.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Sameer Pradhan for the applicant and
Ld. SPP Mr. J.N. Surywanshi. Following points arise for my
.. 3..

BA No.870/2024
determination.

I am recording following findings thereon for the
reasons discussed below :-
POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether the application is maintainable as
directly preferred in this Court rather filing
the same before the Ld. Court of First
instance?

No
2.

What Order ?

Application stands
rejected.
REASONS
POINT NO.1.
THE FACTS INVOLVED IN C.R.No. 42 OF 2023
4.

The first informant and his wife were looking for a house
and they contacted agent Prasanna Khule, who informed them that a
room in Sai Niketan SRA Building No.6, at Prabhadevi was available for
sale, for Rs.35 lakhs. Since the price was within their budget, they
agreed to purchase the said room. It is stated that they went to see the
room along with agent Prasanna Khule. Said Prasanna Khule introduced
the first informant to Sandeep Surve.

The first information report
reveals that Sandeep Surve had informed the first informant that the
said room is of SRA project, and that they would get the name of the
first informant recorded in Annexure II and transfer the room in his
name for Rs.35,00,000/-. Sandeep Surve also told the first informant
that he and Sanjay Kamble, would personally obtain and prepare the
relevant documents required for transfer of the room. Sandeep Surve
and co-accused Sanjay Kamble, who is an employee of Municipal
Corporation, Mumbai, would prepare all the documents required for
transfer of the room. In the FIR it is further alleged that applicant and
.. 4..

BA No.870/2024
the co-accused induced him to pay a total sum of Rs.35 lakhs from time
to time on a false assurance that the room would be transferred in his
name. Accused also assured him that all the relevant documents are
being prepared. Sandeep Surve refused to give copies of the said
documents on the pretext that the BMC documents are confidential and
cannot be shown. The informant further alleged that the Applicant and
the co-accused had told him that about six months time will be required
to get his name included in Annexure II, and induced him to make
payment of Rs.5 Lakhs to one Chandrakant Chavan.
5.

The first informant has stated that he had sold his room
situated at Gokul Dham and paid the said money to the Applicant and
the co-accused in view of the assurances given by them that they would
transfer the room in his name. The grievance of the first informant is
that the Applicant and the co-accused have neither transferred the room
in their name, nor returned the money despite assurances. In the FIR it
is further alleged that the Applicant and the co-accused had also taken
an amount of Rs.23 lakhs from his relative Indrajeet Dhondurao Raul
under the pretext of transferring a room in his name. It is further
alleged that, upon persistent demands, Sandeep Surve has returned an
amount of Rs.95,000/- to the first informant and Rs.1,00,000/- to
Indrajeet Dhondurao Raul, and that they (accused) have not paid the
balance amount, nor transferred the rooms in their names. These are
the facts.
6.

It has to be noted that, earlier this Court has rejected the
bail application of this applicant.

The basis for which was the
observations made by the Ld. Court of First Instance while rejecting his
bail application.

Admittedly, in the instant case, when this Court
.. 5..

BA No.870/2024
rejected his application, the applicant had not approached the Hon’ble
High Court. Admittedly, Sandeep Surve whose bail order is capitalized
for this application, had initially made application to the ld. Court of
First Instance. Only after rejection thereof by the Ld. Court of First
Instance said Sandeep Surve approached this Court. On the contrary
the present applicant even after the Order passed by this Court in
Sandeep Survey’s application, not applied before the Ld. Court of First
Instance but straight way came to this Court.

Judicial discipline
warrants that every application for bail has to be taken before the
Ld. Court of First Instance and if it is rejected, then this Court. In this
background, I am of the opinion that the proper forum for dealing this
application is the Ld. Court of First Instance. Unless it is availed, the
applicant cannot straight way file bail application in this Court. If the
Court entertain such applications, every accused will circumvent the
Court of First of Instance and straight way file bail applications in this
Court i.e. Court of Session, which is against the judicial discipline. With
this, Point No.1 is answered in the negative and following order is
passed :ORDER
Bail Application No.870 of 2024 stands rejected.
Digitally signed
by MADHAV
GOPAL
MADHAV
DESHPANDE
GOPAL
DESHPANDE Date:
2024.04.22
17:56:28 +0530
Dt.: 22.04.2024
Signed on
( M.G. Deshpande )
Additional Sessions Judge.
C.R.No.16, Gr.Bombay at Mumbai
: 22.04.2024
.. 6..

BA No.870/2024
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
22.04.2024 at
hours
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge
Date
of
judgment/order
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
HHJ M. G. DESHPANDE
(COURT ROOM NO.16)
pronouncement
of 22.04.2024
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on
22.04.2024
Judgment/order uploaded on
22.04.2024