Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 09.05.2022
: 09.05.2022
: 30.06.2022
:Y M D
00:01:21
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1083 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO.302 OF 2020
Sanjay Gangaram Katalkar
Age : 45 years,
R/at Lohar Wadi, Sadave,
Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.

…Applicant/Accused.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Mahim Police Station
vide C.R. No.302/2020)
… Non­applicant
Appearance :­
Advocate Mr. Vivek Arote for applicant.
APP Ms. Rayakar for State.
Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Mantri h/f Advocate Vaibhav Bagade for
intervener.
CORAM :
DATE
:
H.H.J. SHRI R.J. KATARIYA
(C.R.NO.25).
30th June, 2022
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. Vivek Arote for applicant,APP
BA No.1083/22
:: 2 ::
Ms. Rayakar for State and learned advocate Mr. Abhijeet Mantri for
intervener.
2.

This is second bail application filed by applicant for grant of
bail in regard to Crime No.302/2020 registered with Mahim Police
Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406,
409, 120­B, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
3.

It is the case of prosecution that crime no.302/2020 came
to be registered on report lodged by informant Vijay Mhaske. It is
alleged that in the year 2016, informant was searching properties for
purchasing at Dapoli Ratnagiri. He got acquainted with co­accused Vijay
Pawar. Co­accused Vijay showed him various properties which were for
sale. He gave assurance to informant that he would get land at
reasonable price of Rs.4,00,000/­ per Acre or even less of it. On
24.01.2017, co­accused Vijay visited the office of informant at Mahim,
Mumbai. He brought various proposals of sale of properties by the
agriculturists at Dapoli, at the rate of Rs.4 Lakh per Acre. It was agreed
between them that the informant would pay Rs.25,000/­ per Acre as a
brokerage. On that day accused Vijay obtained Rs.3,00,000/­ from
informant assuring that said amount would be deducted from the
brokerage amount of transactions. The informant was handicapped and
it was not possible for him to go to Ratnagiri to deal with the people for
purchasing properties, so he executed power of attorney in favour of co­
accused Vijay. It is alleged that the co­accused Vijay used to come at the
office of informant and used to write the cheques for paying the
amounts to the farmers for purchase of their lands. The co­accused Vijay
and present applicant both had obtained cash amounts from the
BA No.1083/22
:: 3 ::
informant to pay the farmers for purchase of their properties. It is
alleged that co­accused Vijay obtained various cheques of various
amounts in the name of various persons totally amounting Rs.
1,74,01,25/­. It is further alleged that co­accused Vijay obtained four
different cheques total amounting Rs.4,90,000/­ in his name. It is
alleged that applicant/accused Santosh Kolambekar along with accused
Vijay cheated the informant. It is alleged that the actual consideration of
the land at the rate of Rs.4 lakh per acre goes to Rs.2,80,00,000/­ but
accused Vijay had obtained Rs.3,52,50,000/­ through cheques and cash,
and cheated him to the tune of Rs.1,30,00,000/­. Accordingly crime is
registered against applicant and co­accused persons.
4.

The Learned advocate for applicant submitted that
applicant is falsely implicated in the crime. He submitted that co­
accused Vijay who is the main accused is granted bail by the Court. The
role of the present applicant is much lesser as compared to role of the
applicant.

The applicant is behind bars since his arrest. Ground of
parity is applicable to the applicant. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.
He placed reliance on following case laws:­
a)
Sushant Santosh Mane Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

[Criminal Bail Application No.639 of 2020, decided on 16.12.2020].
b)
Kedar Prakash Vanjpe Vs The State of Maharashtra [Criminal
Bail Application No.1568 of 2020, decided on 23.12.2021]
c)
Pawandeepsingh Mahendrasingh Kohli Vs The State of
Maharashtra. [Criminal Appeal No.513 of 2021, decided on
18.05.2021]
d)
Ravindra Vasudev Bari v. State of Maharashtra [Bail
Application No.488 of 2020, decided on 09.09.2021].

:: 4 ::
BA No.1083/22
e)
Santosh Shankar Ingle Vs The State of Maharashtra. [Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4713/2020, decided on 05.11.2020]
f)
Surinder Pal Singh v. The State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal
No.411 of 2020, decided on 08.04.2020)
5.

Per contra, vide say filed at Exh.2, Ld. APP opposed
application. It is submitted that there is no change in circumstances. The
ground of parity is not applicable to the applicant. There is role of
applicant in the commission of crime. Offence is serious in nature.
Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
6.

Learned advocate for intervener opposed application by
filing say at Exh.5. It is stated in the say that the order passed in Bail
Application no.3781 of 2021 granting bail to the co­accused Vijay is
obtained by misrepresentation. The applicant had participated in the
commission of crime. Ground of parity is not applicable to the applicant.
Earlier bail application filed by the applicant is rejected on merit. He
placed reliance on the case between Kamranbaig Husenbaig Mirza Vs
The State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No.1448 of 2018
decided on 09.01.2019] and submitted that mere parity can not be the
ground to reconsider the request for bail. Hence prayed for rejection of
the application.
7.

Perusal of FIR, there are allegations against the present
applicant that he was involved in the crime along with main accused
Vijay. It is alleged that the applicant and co­accused had obtained
amount from the informant. The applicant had been signing party to the
documents executed by informant in favour of co­accused Vijay. The co­
BA No.1083/22
:: 5 ::
accused Vijay who had major role in the crime is granted bail vide order
dated 08.03.2022 by my learned Predecessor. The earlier bail
application of the applicant is rejected on 21.09.2021. It appears from
charge­sheet that accused is arrested on 09.02.2021. Since then he is
behind bar. The role of the present applicant is less as compared to the
role of the co­accused Vijay. As co­accused Vijay is released on bail,
ground of parity is applicable to applicant. Considering the matter, it
would not be appropriate to keep applicant behind bars indefinitely.
There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. There would
not be prejudice to the prosecution if appropriate conditions are
imposed against the applicant granting bail to him. I have gone through
the case law relied by both the sides. Considering the facts of the case,
the case law relied by the Learned advocate for applicant are applicable
in the matter and case law relied by the Learned advocate for intervener
are not helpful to him. Hence I proceed to pass following order­
ORDER
1. Bail Application No.1083 of 2022 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Sanjay Gangaram Katalkar be released
on bail in C.R. No.302 of 2020 registered at Mahim Police Station,
on furnishing fresh P. R. bond of Rs.50,000/­ (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one or more sureties in the like amount.
3. He shall not commit any other or similar offence.
4. He shall furnish the document of his permanent and temporary
residential address.
5. He shall not leave Maharashtra without permission of the
Court.
6. He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
7. Provisional cash bail allowed for eight weeks from today.

:: 6 ::
BA No.1083/22
8. Bail Application No.1083 of 2022 stands disposed off.
RAJESH
JAGURAM
KATARIYA
Date: 30.06.2022
Dictated on
Typed on
Signed on
: 30.06.2022
: 30.06.2022
: 30.06.2022
Digitally signed by RAJESH
JAGURAM KATARIYA
Date: 2022.06.30 16:42:33
+0530
(Rajesh J. Katariya)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Mumbai.

:: 7 ::
BA No.1083/22
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Umesh Jadhav
30.06.2022
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri R.J.KATARIYA
(CR No.25)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
Judgment/order uploaded on
30.06.2022
30.06.2022
30.06.2022