Bail Application No.1044/2024.
MHCC020064972024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1044 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 187 OF 2024.

Vijay Jitlal Giri
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Wadala T. T. Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.187/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Arun D. Chaudhary for the Applicant/accused.
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 : 02ND MAY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Vijay Jitlal Giri being
accused in C.R.No.187/2024 registered with Wadala T. T. Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian
Page 1 of 5
Bail Application No.1044/2024.
Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short,
“CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

As on 21.03.2024, at about 9.30 pm, while the informant
was proceeding to the Madrasi market for purchasing groceries and
passing through Ganpati Mandir, Vijaynagar, Wadala east, the
applicant/accused came at the said spot and asked for money from
the informant. When the informant refused to give such money,
applicant/accused threatened her with knife and snatched her purse
and took out Rs.2,000/- forcibly from it. At that time the residents
nearby
caught
the
applicant/accused
and
handed-over
the
applicant/accused to the police. Thus, offence was lodged under the
sections ibid.
3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated. It is stated that the coaccused is enlarged on bail and claims for parity. It is stated that the
alleged weapon is not seized by the police. Therefore further
incarceration is not necessitated. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant prayed for enlarging the applicant/accused 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, there are eye witnesses to the incident.
Further the investigation is under progress. The prosecution also has
Page 2 of 5
Bail Application No.1044/2024.
brought on record the 10 criminal antecedents to the discredit of the
applicant/accused. It is stated that, the recovery of the weapon i.e.
knife used during the commission of offence and the amount of
Rs.2,000/- taken by him from the purse is effected under the personal
search of the applicant/accused. Ld. Prosecutor 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.

6.

On meticulous examination of case record, it palpably
evinces to myself that the applicant/accused has not denied for his
presence at the spot of incident. Further, the mob therein at the spot
had held the accused and had handed-over the applicant/accused to
the police. Undoubtedly there are eye-witnesses to the incident, and
they reside in the vicinity of the applicant/accused. Also there is an
abysmal track record to the dis-credit of the applicant/accused.
Further the recovered weapon and the cash propels for the active
participation of the applicant/accused in the present crime.

This
ipso-facto dis-entitles the applicant/accused for any such relief of
enlargement on bail.
7.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.
Page 3 of 5
Bail Application No.1044/2024.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant it is palpably clear that, the applicant/accused
was duly found with the weapon and cash. Therefore, the active
participation of
the applicant/accused is apparently
located.

Therefore, there is every possibility that, the applicant/accused might
tamper the prosecution evidence if enlarged on bail as the eye
witnesses and the victim reside within the same vicinity. Apart from
the same, as stated supra, there is an abysmal track record to the
discredit of the applicant/accused. Therefore, I do not find this as a
fit case for grant of bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold
that, the application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.1044/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

Dr. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 02.05.2024.

Digitally signed by
Dr. ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.05.04
12:17:03 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 02.05.2024.
Transcribed on : 03.05.2024.
HHJ signed on : 04.05.2024.

Page 4 of 5
Bail Application No.1044/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
04.05.2024
12.16 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
02.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
04.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
04.05.2024
uploaded
Page 5 of 5