Bail Application No.82/2024.
MHCC020005502024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 310 OF 2023.

Sharad Hanmant Ekawade
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Sion Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.310/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Trupen Rathod 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 : 15TH JANUARY, 2024.

Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.82/2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Sharad Hanmant Ekawade
being accused in C.R.No.310/2023 registered with Sion Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
452, 170, 342 and 120-B 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, as on 26.11.2023
offense was registered against 5 unknown persons under Section ibid.
As on 26.11.2023 at about 11.40 am accused persons came to the
house of the informant and had shown his ID Card pretending as an
Income Tax Officer. The accused persons thereafter entered into the
house and closed the doors and took mobile phone of all the family
members and thereby asked them for the keys of the cupboard and
thereafter, took Rs.18 lakhs kept in the cupboard and fled from the
spot in an Innova Car.

Thus, the offence was registered under
Sections ibid.
3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused states that, the applicant/accused is falsely
implicated. It is further stated that, applicant/accused was arrested
upon the revelations of the co-accused i.e. accused No.5. Further, the
alleged offence took place as on 26.11.2023, while it was reported at
the police station as on 04.12.2023. Therefore, there is a delay in
registering the FIR. Admittedly, a recovery of Rs.55,000/- has been
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.82/2024.
effected from the applicant/accused.

The vehicle used in the
commission of crime does not belong to the applicant/accused.
CCTV
Footage
does
not
confirm
the
presence
of
the
applicant/accused. So also, the applicant has not aided in forging the
ID Cards and therefore, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused state
that,
no
further
incarceration
is
required.

Hence,
the
applicant/accused be enlarged on bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the applicant/accused had received his
share from the alleged sum of Rs.18 lakhs which is to the tune of Rs.2
lakhs. Out of the said sum, it is the applicant/accused who made a
disclosure statement and an amount of Rs.55,000/- was recovered
under memorandum panchnama. The prosecution apprehends racket
operating in the present crime as the factum of connivance is well
located. Furthermore, the remnant recovery is pending and as per
the Ld. Prosecutor when the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused
himself admits to pay such remnant sum with the Court Registry
although under the protest is an admission on record. Prosecution
further apprehends for abscondance, tampering of evidence and
threatening to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor
prayed for rejection of application.

5.

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

Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.82/2024.
6.

On copious perusal of the application/reply and the
appended documents it palpably evinces to myself that, the
applicant/accused himself has made a disclosure statement and
pursuant to the same recovery was effected to the tune of
Rs.55,000/- at the behest of the applicant/accused himself.

This
ipso-facto disentitles any such relief of enlargement on bail as
redressed by the applicant/accused. The factum of delayed FIR will
have no bearing at this juncture.

Further, the factum of CCTV
Footage also requires ascertainment during the course of regular trial.
7.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused it is evident that, the accused has
claimed of false implication but the applicant/accused has not denied
for his acquaintance with the co-accused. On the contrary
applicant/accused categorically states in the application itself that,
the prime role in the present crime has been played by the accused
No.1
and
2.

Therefore,
the
active
participation
of
the
applicant/accused alongwith the details of crime are to the
knowledge of the applicant/accused. Also that the applicant/accused
has not denied for the presence at the spot, nor had tendered reason
for his presence at the spot and therefore, I do not find this as a fit
case for grant of bail. So also, the investigation is at a nascent stage
and granting such relief will derail the momentum of investigation.
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.82/2024.
In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.82/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 15.01.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.01.17
13:16:26 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 15.01.2024.
Transcribed on : 15.01.2024.
HHJ signed on : 17.01.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.82/2024.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
17.01.2024
01.15 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
15.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
17.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
17.01.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6