1
BA 1856/22
CNR NO.MHCC020101192022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1856 OF 2022
Mr. SubrataDwidesh Chandra Roy
An Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at : Flat No.1202,
Plot No.72M 72L
Opp. RIS Kharghar, Sector 11,
Kharghar, Navi Mumbai
The State of Maharashtra
(Through V.B. Marg P. Stn.
vide Cr. No.353/2021)
… Applicant / Accused
Versus
… Respondent
Appearance :
Vaibhav Wavikar Advocate for accused
Mr. Mahakal, A.P.P. for respondent.
CORAM : SHRI. S.D. KULKARNI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 08/08/2022.
ORDER
1.
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with
CR.No.353/2021 registered with V.B. Nagar Police Station for the
commission of offence u/sec.420 of Indian Penal Code
2.
The allegation against the accused that accused had told
the informant that he will give job to her brother in railway but she
need to give some amount for the same. The informant lateron agreed
for the same for giving amount and accordingly paid Rs.3,00,000/ to
2
BA 1856/22
him. Thereafter accused neither gave job nor return the said amount
but informant received information that accused has cheated many
persons therefore, informant lodged report against the accused.
3.
The allegation of the accused that he is falsely implicated in
the present case. He has not committed any fraud neither deceived
informant nor eyewitnesses. The informant falsely alleged that accused
has taken Rs.3,00,000/ from him. It is further alleged by the accused
that nothing is recovered from the possession of the accused therefore,
there is no purpose in keeping accused behind the bar. Hence, accused
prayed for releasing him on bail.
4.
The prosecution opposed the application on a ground that
the accused not only cheated the informant but also witnesses and from
them also he has received huge amount of Rs.12,20,000/. The accused
has permanent resident of Mumbai therefore, if he release on bail there
is possibility of flee away from the justice. The investigation is over in
the matter but the seizure of cheating proceeds amount is yet to be
recovered. It is further alleged by the prosecution that if accused release
on bail there is possibility of threatening the prosecution witnesses. The
advocate for the prosecution relied on the ratio laid down in the case of
State of Bihar V/s. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai in Cr.Appeal No.767 of
2017 therein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
Socioeconomic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in matter of bail – investigating
agency is going to file additional charge sheet and respondent’s
presence in custody may be necessary for further investigation –
when seriousness of offence is such mere fact that he was in jail for
however long time should not be concern of Courts – Order of High
3
BA 1856/22
Court granting bail set aside.
Therefore, prayed for rejection of application.
5.
I have gone through the report, statement of witnesses
therein all the witnesses stated that accused gave assurance to all the
witnesses of giving job and from them amount was extracted. In all 13
witnesses given amount to the accused which is come on record. The
proceed of commission of the crime is not recovered the offence is
serious in nature. Basically it is socio economic offence therefore,
allegation against the accused is well founded. The person like accused
taking disadvantage of the unemployed persons in the country and
cheated them by extracting huge amount such incidence increased day
to day. The Investigating Officer mentioned in the application that
accused is not a permanent resident of Maharashtra. Accused has not
cooperated the investigation agency, interrogation and recovery was
not possible from the accused if, accused release on bail. Therefore,
considering the nature of the offence and considering the fact that
accused has cheated 13 to 14 persons of giving false assurance of giving
job to them and extracted huge amount from them. Therefore, in my
opinion accused is not entitled to be release on bail. Considering, this I
pass the following order “
ORDER
1]
Bail Application No.1856 of 2022 stands rejected.
2]
Bail Application No.1856 of 2022 is disposed off accordingly.
Date : 08/08/2022.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed by HHJ on
: 08.08.2022
: 10.08.2022
: 10.08.2022
SANTOSH
DIGAMBAR
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH DIGAMBAR
KULKARNI
Date: 2022.08.12
11:21:36 +0530
( S.D. KULKARNI )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.
4
BA 1856/22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
10/08/2022
04.00 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri.
Room No.)
S.D. Kulkarni,
Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 08/08/2022
ORDER signed by P.O. on
10/08/2022
ORDER uploaded on
10/08/2022