1
Cri BA No.257-2024
MHCC020018282024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2024
Tulshidas Tatyaba Jadhav,
] …Applicant.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Kurla Police Station Vide C.R. ]
No.225 of 2023)
] …Respondent.
Advocate Rahul Arote for applicant.
APP Sulbha Joshi for the State.
CORAM :
SHRI. S.B. PAWAR,
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)
DATE
:
09th FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORDER
The applicant, who is in detention in connection with C.R.
No.225 of 2023 registered with Kurla Police Station for offence under
sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the present
application for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
2.

The FIR is registered on the basis of complaint lodged by
first informant Vishal Rangnath Bandwalkar. It is alleged in the
complaint that the first informant came in contact with the applicant
through his acquaintance. One Shradha Tawade introduced applicant
to the first informant. The applicant assured that he will provide
2
Cri BA No.257-2024
Government job to the first informant. The first informant transferred
amount of Rs.1 lakh in bank account of the applicant on 20.01.2020
and paid cash of Rs.2 lakhs on 24.01.2020. He also handed over
original educational documents to the applicant. Applicant took
signature of first informant by deceiving him, showing that the amount
was lent for business. Applicant has accepted money from various other
persons on the pretext of securing Government jobs to them.

He
formed Whatsapp group of all the said persons. In meeting held on
05.03.2021 at Cafe Metro Family Restaurant, he took Rs.26,000/- from
each of the said persons for opening bank accounts. He lateron avoided
to contact the first informant or to refund the money and the original
documents.
3.

It is alleged that the applicant made Shiv Rama Shinde to
part with Rs.3,02,000/-, Navnath Dashrath Dhore and Ganesh Dashrath
Dhore to part with Rs.2,20,000/-, Pournima Rupesh Kirtane to part with
Rs.76,000/-, Rupesh Sambhaji Kirtane to part with Rs.76,000/-, Varsha
Vishal Kirtane to part with Rs.76,000/-, Pratibha Khuje to part with
Rs.1,26,000/-, Gaurav Sadashiv Jadhav to part with Rs.50,000/-,
Chetan Prabhakar Bhoi to part with Rs.1,00,000/-, Avinash Raghunath
Bhoi to part with Rs.76,000/-, Akshay Maruti Katkar to part with
Rs.2,01,000/-, Shailesh Vasant Shelar to part with Rs.51,000/-, Suraj
Tanaji Gaikwad to part with Rs.1,00,000/-, Rohit Revankar to part with
Rs.1,26,000/-, Aniket Tukaram Bihardi to part with Rs.3,26,000/-,
Reshma Sameer Mulla and Muskan Abdul Mulani to part with
Rs.3,52,000/-, Sagar Mahadev Satpute to part with Rs.76,000/-,
Sangeeta Shivaji Gopale to part with Rs.2,01,000/-,
Suraj Tanaji
Gaikwad to part with Rs.1,26,000/- and Vishal Vishram Bamane to part
with Rs.1,00,000/- by inducing all of them to provide Government jobs
3
Cri BA No.257-2024
either to them or to their son or daughter. He fetched aggregate sum of
Rs.30,62,000/- from them, took their original educational documents
and misappropriated the amount.
4.

Applicant claims that he is innocent.

The case of
prosecution is based on documentary evidence. The transaction is of
civil nature. The applicant could not complete the work therefore, at
the most there would be breach of promise and no criminal offence is
attracted. He is permanent resident of Mumbai. The offence is
punishable upto seven years therefore, indefinite incarceration of
applicant is not warranted. There is no recovery in the case. He had no
intention to cheat the people and he had issued post-dated cheques as
security for the amount lent by them. His bank accounts are freezed by
police. He is already released on bail in similar offences. Investigation
is complete and charge-sheet is filed. Thus, he prays for bail on suitable
terms and conditions.
5.

Prosecution, through investigating officer, filed reply Exh.2
and opposed bail on following grounds:
1) The applicant has cheated first informant and 16 other
persons and investigation is still going on. The applicant
has not co-operated in recovery of original documents and
the amount misappropriated by him.
2) The applicant has not co-operated in the investigation.
He has deceived many persons and various other crimes are
registered against applicant in different police stations.
3) The applicant is changing his residence frequently as
he is involved in multiple crimes. There is possibility that
he may pressurize the first informant and witnesses.

4
6.

Cri BA No.257-2024
Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP.

Learned Advocate for applicant argued that it is alleged that applicant
fetched amount of Rs.30,60,000/-. But he has issued security cheques
for the said amount. Considering number of witnesses and volume of
evidence, the trial may require considerable time to conclude and
applicant can not be detained indefinitely when investigation is
complete and charge-sheet is filed.

He further submits that the
applicant is released on bail by the Court at Belapur, Navi Mumbai in
the offence registered against him at Nerul Police Station and
Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court Mumbai in the offence
registered against him at Bhandup Police Station. Therefore, he urged
that applicant be admitted to bail. He placed reliance upon following
judgments:
1) Kapil Wadhawan V/s. State of U.P., LAWS (ALL) 2023
4 27.
2) Sanjay Chandra V/s. CBI, Criminal Appeal No.2178 of
2011 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5650 of 2011.
3) Ramesh Kumar V/s. State of NCT of Delhi, LAWS (SC)
2023 7 7.
4) Sanjay Saxena V/s. State of GNCTD, Bail Application
No.2009 of 2022 (High Court of Delhi).
5) Prabhakar Tewari V/s. State of U.P., LAWS (SC) 2020
1 73.
6) Ramrup Bhagwandas Gupta V/s. State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Application No.706 of 2006 (High
Court of Bombay).
7) Satendra Kumar Antil V/s. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of
2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021.

5
7.

Cri BA No.257-2024
Per contra, learned APP argued that bail orders in other
crimes relied upon by the applicant are not binding on this Court. Huge
amount of Rs.30,60,000/- is involved.

Similar nine offences are
registered, which show that applicant is habitual offender.

There is
possibility that he may abscond and dispose of the amount as single
penny is not recovered during investigation. The applicant induced
people to part with their hard earned money for securing them jobs.
There is intention since beginning to cheat people.

The original
documents are not recovered therefore, it is not a fit case to admit the
applicant to bail.
8.

I have carefully considered submissions of both the sides as
well as judgments relied upon by learned advocate for the applicant. It
is alleged that applicant accepted aggregate sum of Rs.30,60,000/- from
17 persons, including the first informant and the said fact is not
disputed by the applicant. Applicant contends that the transaction is of
civil nature and he has issued security cheques for the said amount. As
per the allegations in the FIR, it is apparent that the applicant had
promised the first informant and other 16 persons that he would secure
Government job and for that purpose induced them to part with
amounts as well as original educational documents.

It is further
apparent that the applicant executed agreements showing the amounts
as loan for business purposes. The investigation papers in the chargesheet disclose that in the house search of the applicant, original
documents of about 24 persons were found alongwith half filled bank
account opening application forms of those persons. Thus, it appears
that in the present crime, almost 17 persons parted their hard earned
money to the applicant under impression that they would get
Government job. The applicant has taken undue advantage of the
6
Cri BA No.257-2024
situation of those persons, induced them that he would secure
Government jobs to them and fetched the amount to the extent of
Rs.30,60,000/-, making writings that the same is advanced by them for
business. Therefore, prima facie the offence of cheating is made out
against the applicant.
9.

The reply filed by prosecution shows that other similar nine
offences are registered against the applicant. Out of the said offences,
in the year 2022-2023 two offences are registered, in addition to the
present offence. Learned Advocate for the applicant invited attention of
the Court to bail order dated 19.12.2023 in C.R. No.495 of 2023
registered with Nerul Police Station and bail order dated 06.01.2024 in
C.R. No.141 of 2022 registered with Bhandup Police Station. These
orders go to show that in C.R. registered with Bhandup Police Station,
the applicant induced almost 22 persons to part with money
aggregating to Rs.45,85,000/-. It further appears from the bail order
dated 06.01.2024 in connection with C.R. No.141 of 2022 that
applicant fetched money on assurance of providing jobs as well as
residential premises in order to grab the money. The crimes registered
against the applicant show that the applicant is habitual in commission
of similar offences of cheating.
10.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that charge-
sheet is filed and looking into the number of witnesses and the volume
of the documents in the charge-sheet, the trial may take considerable
time to conclude. However, it may be noted from the documents
brought on record by the applicant himself that the learned trial Court
framed charge immediately after the charge-sheet was submitted and
the witnesses are also attending the trial. The roznama of the learned
7
Cri BA No.257-2024
trial Court, dated 16.01.2024 shows that three witnesses were present
and as per noting dated 24.01.2024, nine witnesses were present before
the learned trial Court. The notings further show that the matter was
adjourned on the request of applicant. In the charge-sheet, prosecution
has cited total 19 witnesses. Therefore, it does not appear that the trial
may take longer period, considering the prompt steps taken by the the
learned Court of first instance in the matter. Moreover, in case there is
delay in trial, applicant is entitled to seek bail on the said ground at
appropriate stage of the proceeding.

At this stage when material
indicates that charge is promptly framed and matter is at the stage of
recording of evidence, I do not find any force in the submission of
learned Advocate for applicant to consider probable delay in trial as a
factor to admit the applicant to bail.
11.

The spectrum of offence is not limited only to the 16
persons named in the FIR. The applicant is indulged in similar offences
in past indicating his tendency to repeat the similar offence. In the reply
filed by prosecution, it is specifically contended that due to registration
of various crimes, the applicant is frequently changing his residence. In
these circumstances, it may be difficult to secure presence of the
applicant for trial before learned trial Court. Learned advocate for the
applicant also putforth medical ground for bail. I have gone through the
relevant medical documents produced on record. These are of February
2023 and the applicant is shown to be recovered. Therefore, the said
ground is also not sufficient to release the applicant on bail.
12.

Though the offence invoked against the applicant is
punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, considering his
criminal antecedents showing tendency to repeat similar crimes and
8
Cri BA No.257-2024
possibility of fleeing from justice, in my view this is not a fit case to
exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. In the light of the peculiar
facts involved in this case, with due respect, the judgments relied upon
by the learned advocate for the applicant can not be made applicable to
the present facts. In these circumstances, in my view, the applicant can
not be admitted to bail. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.257 of 2024 filed by applicant
Tulshidas Tatyaba Jadhav in connection with C.R. No.225 of 2023
registered with Kurla Police Station for offence under sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.257 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Date : 09/02/2024
(S.B. PAWAR)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
Order Dictated on: 09/02/2024
Transcribed on : 09/02/2024
Checked on
: 12/02/2024
Signed on
: 12/02/2024
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
12.02.2024
Upload Time
4.30 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court SHRI. S.B. PAWAR (CR 58)
Room No.)
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of 09.02.2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 12.02.2024
9
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 12.02.2024
on
Cri BA No.257-2024