B.A. No. 826/2022.
MHCC020046562022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 826 OF 2022.
IN
C.R. NO(DCB CID). 01 OF 2022.
IN
C.R. No(BHANDUP POLICE STATION) 09 of 2022.
Sumit Mukund Nagarale @ Sumit Kamal
Punjabi
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of DCB CID Unit VII, Vide
C. R. No. 01 of 2022.)
… Respondent
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal for the applicant/ accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Anand Sukhdeve for the State present.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED :19th JULY, 2022
ORDER
By this application the applicant/accused Sumit Mukund
Nagarale @ Sumit Kamal Punjabi seeks to be enlarged on bail under
Page 1 of 7
B.A. No. 826/2022.
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (In short, “Cr.P.C”), as
they being accused in C.R. No.01 of 2022 registered with DCB CID Unit
– VII, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419,
465, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Iin short
“IPC”).
THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPLICANT’S CASE ENSUES AS UNDER,
2.
The informant Rajni Rana lodged a complaint as on 7 th of January
2022 that a person namely Ali Hashmi, known to her informed that a
person namely Bhaskar Rao was in need of money. As on 5 th of January
2022 the informant along with the said individual Ali Hashmi met the
said Bhaskar Rao. The informant was told that the said Bhaskar Rao has
got one precious metal pot and with the help of his friends he has sold it
abroad to a foreign company namely Cameco Corporation, Canada.
Against the said transaction the said company would pay € 15 billion
and out of the said amount € 6.7 billion that is ₹ 55,000 crore is
already transferred in the account of the said Bhaskar Rao. The said
amount of ₹ 55,000 crore is freezed by the RBI in its foreign exchange
department as ₹ 27 crores is to be paid against tax to the RBI.
Accordingly, the informant was asked to invest such amount and
against such investment she would be reimbursed by way of 40% of
share in the amount that was to be received by the said Bhaskar Rao.
Accordingly, and advance amount of ₹ 30,000 was accepted at hotel
Anantha, LBS road, Bhandup Mumbai. Thus, the sleuth of DCB CID unit
– 7, registered an offence against the accused and they were put under
arrest. During the course of investigation, it revealed that the accused
forged certain documents and used the said documents for the purposes
Page 2 of 7
B.A. No. 826/2022.
of cheating people. Surprisingly the said documents which were seized
from the accused where in the name of archaeological survey of India,
Delhi, defence research and development Organization Delhi, vigilance
and legal department Bengaluru, baba atomic research Centre Trombay,
atomic energy regulatory Board etc.
3.
Ld. advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
Applicant accused is falsely implicated and neither has committed any
such offence nor aided or abetted any coaccused. It is further stated
that no role has been attributed to the Applicant/accused in the present
crime, and it is only alleged that the Applicant/accused is a partner of
accused No. 1. Therefore, considering the fact of accusation it does not
disclose any primafacie case against the Applicant/accused. It is
categorically stated that the Applicant is not a beneficiary or recipient of
any amount in the present crime. It is also further stated that the co
accused Anil Kumar has also been enlarged on bail by the learned
predecessor in office. In view of the same, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused prayed for enlargement of the applicant/accused on
bail.
4.
Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide exhibit
2, and inter alia have resisted the application upon various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the Applicant accused is a professional cheater.
Further, the forged documents and its PDF file are retrieved from the
mobile of the Applicant/accused dated 21st of January 2022. Further
such other electronic devices were also seized and it has revealed that
the documents were edited by way of CorelDRAW software. It has also
revealed that the Applicant/accused have forged documents in the
Page 3 of 7
B.A. No. 826/2022.
name of RBI, Finance Ministry (Union of India), DR DO, ISRO, raw, and
such other Indian administrative offices and multinational banks. The
sleuth has already corresponded with all such departments and
multinational banks and certain such correspondences from the other
side are awaited. Further, the prosecution apprehends abscondance and
tampering of prosecution evidence. Lastly, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed
for rejection of application.
5.
Heard learned advocate for Applicant/accused, and learned
prosecutor for the state. Perused application and reply.
6.
On meticulous examination of the case record it evinces to
myself that admittedly, the Applicant/accused was intercepted on the
same spot along with the coaccused. The retrieved data from the
mobile of the Applicant/accused categorically shows his active
involvement in the present crime. Apart from the same, certain other
incriminating and objectionable material was seized from the said
accused. So also the Applicant/accused has failed to explain the very
purpose of his presence over the spot and the Applicant/accused has
also not denied his connection with that of the coaccused.
7.
While deciding an application for bail it is settled that the
Court is required to see whether the primafacie case exists or not. It is
not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits of
prosecution case.
8.
Further it is also evident that the Applicant/accused had
preferred a bail application before the learned magistrate court upon
Page 4 of 7
B.A. No. 826/2022.
same set of facts postfiling of chargesheet and the said application was
rejected by the learned magistrate court. Therefore, post rejection of the
bail application by the magistrate court, the Applicant/accused has
failed to propel out such a substantial change in circumstance in order
to avail the benefit of enlargement on bail. Learned advocate for
Applicant/accused has filed and relied upon various case laws which
ensue as under: –
1. Sumeet Saluja Vs. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No.
953/2011.
2. Kunal Ramdas Chavhan Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2001 CJ(Bom) 1082.
3. Vinod Bhavarlal Mohta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010
ALL MR (Cri) 1793.
4. Partho Nirmal Dasgupta Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Bail Application No. 389/2021.
5. Deepak Hiralal Goplani Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Application No. 1817/2009 and 1748/2009.
9.
Considering the conspectus of the aforesaid case laws it is
the case of applicant/accused that, when the entire case is based on
documents and the documents are already in possession of the
investigating agency the same would not require further detention of
the Applicant/accused. Similar view has been reiterated in various
other case laws. Considering the case in hand it is evident that the
Applicant/accused in connivance with the coaccused had forged
documents in the name of various central institutions, national and
international banking institutions and the agency has corresponded
with such institutions pertaining to receipt of such returned
correspondence with regard to such documents. Therefore, the role of
Page 5 of 7
B.A. No. 826/2022.
the Applicant/accused is apparently established. In view of the same, I
do humbly submit that, the case laws cited and relied by the learned
advocate for Applicant/accused cannot be applied to the case in hand at
this juncture. The learned prosecutor categorically states that
correspondences from certain departments are issued while some are
awaited. And there is a like possibility that there could be enhancement
in the offences invoked against the accused.
Therefore, upon the
aforesaid set of facts, I do not find this as a fit case for grant of bail. In
the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, as the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra: –
ORDER
Bail Application No. 826/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 19.07.2022
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.07.26
16:32:50 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.37)
.
Dictated on
: 19.07.2022.
Transcribed on : 20.07.2022.
HHJ signed on : 26.07.2022.
Page 6 of 7
B.A. No. 826/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
26.07.2022
04.31 p.m.
Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI A. A. JOGLEKAR
Room No.)
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of
19.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by
26.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
26.07.2022
signed
Page 7 of 7