B.A.No. 294/24.
1
Order.
MHCC020020222024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 02-02-2024
: 02-02-2024
: 26-02-2024
: 0 years, 0 months, 24 days
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY,
AT MUMBAI.
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 294 OF 2024
Vikramsingh Motisingh Rao
@ Vikram Surawat
Village-Merta, Post Dabok, Tehsil- Mavali,
District – Udaipur (Rajasthan)
…Applicant/Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through L.T.Marg Police Station,
C.R.No. 1065/2022)
…Respondent
Shri M.S.Mali, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Shri Lade, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI S.D.KULKARNI,
ADHOC ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORDER
1.
This is an application filed by the accused under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for releasing him on bail
in connection with C.R.No. 1065/2022 of L.T.Marg Police Station,
B.A.No. 294/24.
2
Order.
Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable under Section 409,
420 of Indian Penal Code.
2.
It is alleged by the applicant/accused that he is innocent
and is falsely implicated in the present crime. The applicant/accused is
reputed person and having goodwill in the society. The informant
unable to produce the GST voucher / delivery challans, GST bills of the
alleged gold. The offence under Section 409 and 420 of IPC did not
attract to the applicant/accused. In the FIR it is nowhere mentioned
that what kind of gold ornaments informant had given to the accused.
The FIR was lodged in December, 2023. The applicant/accused was
arrested on 11/12/2023, he had undergone custodial interrogation and
now he is in judicial custody. The investigation officer has filed the
charge-sheet. Nothing remains to be seized from the applicant/accused.
It is not proper to keep the applicant/accused behind the bar till
conclusion of the trial. Hence, prayed for releasing accused on bail.
3.
The prosecution resisted the application by filing reply vide
Exh.3. The contention of the prosecution that huge amount of gold yet
to be recovered from the accused persons. The investigation in the
crime is not concluded. Accused is resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan,
therefore if released on bail, there is possibility of flee from justice. If
accused is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering prosecution
evidence and threatening prosecution witnesses. The huge amount of
gold involved in the offence, therefore it needs to be properly
investigated. Therefore, prosecution prayed for rejection of application.
4.
Perused application and say filed by the prosecution. Heard
both the advocates at length. I have also gone through the F.I.R.,
B.A.No. 294/24.
3
Order.
remand papers, statement of informant. On going through it, it reveals
that the informant and accused was met in January 2020 and they have
started business with each other since then. The applicant/accused is a
goldsmith and informant used to do the business of making gold
ornaments. Their practice of business that accused used to give order to
the informant to make gold ornaments. On the basis of order, informant
used to prepare gold ornaments in 22 carets gold. Thereafter accused
used to give pure gold of 24 caret to the informant. Their business was
continued for one and half year. Lastly, informant prepared the gold
ornaments on the basis of order of accused of 1414 grams but accused
has not given pure gold to him.
5.
So it shows that there is a business transaction in between
informant and accused. The applicant/accused was arrested long back
and during custodial interrogation the gold articles was seized from
him. So nothing remains to be seized from the possession of the
applicant/accused. Nothing come on record that the intention of the
applicant/accused since beginning is to deceive the informant.
Considering the fact that accused is a goldsmith, therefore, there is no
possibility of flee from justice. Considering the pendency of the matter,
it will take considerable time to commence and conclude the trial.
Therefore, it is not just and proper to keep the accused behind the bar
till conclusion of the trial. Therefore applicant/accused is entitled to be
released on bail. Considering this, I pass following order :
– ORDER 1.
Bail Application No. 294/2024 is allowed.
2.
Applicant/accused Vikramsingh Motisingh Rao @ Vikram
Surawat arrested in C.R.No. 1065/2022 under Sections 409, 420 of the
Indian Penal Code registered at L.T.Marg Police Station be released on
B.A.No. 294/24.
4
Order.
bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
surety/ies in the like amount.
3.
The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence in any manner.
4.
Provisional cash bail in the like amount is allowed. The accused
shall furnish surety within 4 weeks from the date of release from jail
failing which the cash bail shall stand forfeited without any separate
order to that effect.
5.
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
6.
The applicant/accused is directed not to involve in similar types
of offence in future.
7.
Bail before the learned Trial Court.
(S.D.KULKARNI)
Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Mumbai.
Date : 26/02/2024.
1. Dictated online on
2. Placed for correction on
3. Checked on
4. Correction carried on
5. Signed on
6. Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 26/02/2024.
: 26/02/2024.
: 27/02/2024.
: 01/03/2024.
: 01/03/2024.
:
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
B.A.No. 294/24.
5
Order.
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
02/03/2024. 5.57 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)
HHJ Shri S.D.Kulkarni.
(Court Room No.66).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 26/02/2024.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
01/03/2024.
Judgment/Order uploaded on
02/03/2024.