1
B.A. 1051/24
MHCC020065452024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.1051 OF 2024
Syed Ali Mohiuddin Makki
Aged – An adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at 14-1-494/1, Aghapura, Nampally,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500012
….Applicant
– Versus The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Cyber Police Station,
Central Region vide C.R.No.3/2024)
.… Respondent
Appearance :Adv. Mohd. Akram Uddin Khan a/w Adv Mohad Kasim Alure for the
Applicant/accused.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the State.

CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 29/04/2024
ORDER
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of The
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with
C.R.No.3/2024 registered with Cyber Police Station, Central Region,
Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec. 419, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of The Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D)
of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2
2.

B.A. 1051/24
It is the contention of the applicant / accused that he is
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is
arrested on 09.03.2024. The applicant / accused submits that he has
undergone custodial interrogation. The investigation is completed. The
applicant is the sole earning member in the family. There is no point in
keeping the accused behind bars till conclusion of trial. There is no
criminal antecedents against the accused. He is the permanent resident
of his given address therefore he prayed for releasing him on bail.
3.

The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply
vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is
released on bail there are chances that he may flee away from justice. If
the accused is released on bail there are chances of threatening of
prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence,
prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.
4.

Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard
the ld. Advocate for the applicant, ld. APP for the respondent / State.
5.

I have gone through the application, reply, documents filed
on record. It is the case of the prosecution that one Mr. Kashyap Kalpesh
Thakkar lodged report that on 16.11.2023 that he received WhatsApp
message on his mobile offering him part time job. For the said online
task, commission was offered. Various tasks were offered on
commission. He was directed to transfer certain amount for receiving
the said task. He was induced to deposit said amount in various bank
accounts. Accordingly he deposited Rs.10,30,000/-. He was duped for
Rs.10,30,000/- therefore, he lodged report and crime is registered
accordingly.

3
6.

B.A. 1051/24
The investigation reveals that for the said fraud the
applicant’s bank account has been used. According to the applicant he
allowed Mr. M.D. Raazi from Hyderabad to use his account for that
purpose. The applicant / accused has accepted the amount by way of
commission. According to the prosecution said M.D. Razi is yet to be
arrested. The present applicant / accused has been arrested on
09.03.2024. It is a matter of fact that the bank account of the applicant
has been used in fraud with his consent and his knowledge. Therefore,
the applicant / accused by such way involved in the alleged offence. He
was aware about the transaction held in his bank account. In respect of
transfer of huge amount in his bank account he did not raised objection
to such transaction. It shows that the applicant is also involved in the
commission of this offence. He assisted the principle accused in
commission of said fraud. He accepted the commission for use of said
account. The investigation is in progress. Release of accused at this
stage will hamper the investigation. The applicant / accused is resident
of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, if he is released on bail, he
will flee away from the justice. Considering this fact on record, I am of
the view that the applicant is not entitled for the bail. Hence, I pass the
following order :
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.1051 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.
Date : 29/04/2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed by HHJ on
: 29.04.2024
: 02.05.2024
: 03.05.2024
RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Date: 2024.05.04
16:18:48 +0530
( RAJESH A. SASNE )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

4
B.A. 1051/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
29/04/2024
2.45 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A.
Room No.)
Sasne, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 29/04/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
04/05/2024
ORDER uploaded on
04/05/2024