Bail Application No.569/2024.
MHCC020037012024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 310 OF 2023.

Sharad Hanumant Ekawade
…Applicant.

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

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Ms. Pooja S. Jadhav 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 : 07TH MARCH, 2024.

Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.569/2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Sharad Hanumant
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”).

This is
application post filing of charge-sheet.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

The applicant/accused had preferred such application prior
to filing of charge-sheet and therefore, the facts of the case are
reproduced for the purposes of convenience. 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, the applicant/accused has not
been named in the FIR. Further, the applicant/accused is arraigned
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.569/2024.
in the present crime upon the revelations of the co-accused. It is
stated that, Test Identification Parade was not conducted in case of
the applicant/accused and that, the applicant/accused is also not
located in the CCTV Footage of the said building. Prosecution also
has not secured any CDR or Tower location for ascertaining 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/- out of
Rs.1,80,000/- was recovered under memorandum panchnama.
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.569/2024.

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/-
out
of
Rs.1,80,000/-
at
the
behest
of
the
applicant/accused himself. As observed hereinbefore, 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. It clearly transpires that, as the applicant/accused has
made a disclosure statement and thereby pursuant recovery was
effected under memorandum, further strengthens the case of
prosecution.
7.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused, as observed on the earlier occasion,
the
accused
has
claimed
of
false
implication,
but
the
applicant/accused has not denied for his acquaintance with the coaccused. 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 such receipt of sum. Thus, it
clearly propels for the active participation of the applicant/accused in
the present crime. As the remnant recovery is yet pending, there is
every possibility that, the applicant/accused might tamper with the
prosecution evidence. Therefore, I do not find this as a fit case for
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.569/2024.
grant of bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the
application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.569/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 07.03.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.03.11
17:13:13 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 07.03.2024.
Transcribed on : 07.03.2024.
HHJ signed on : 11.03.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.569/2024.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
11.03.2024
05.12 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
07.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
11.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
11.03.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6