B.A.1199/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1199 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020066552022 )
Vinay Suresh Angane
Age: 46 years, Occ: Service,
R/o: Nakshtra CHSL,
Room No.2102, Shailendra
Nagar, Dahisar East,
Mumbai 400 068.
…Applicant/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of Tilak nagar P.Stn.
Vide C.R. No.4/2022)
…Respondents/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Pandey Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Ms. Manjushri Golhar, APP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE, THE ADDL.
JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 06/06/2022.
ORDER
1.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail by
applicant/accused Vinay Suresh Angane in crime No.4/2022 under
section 406,420 of IPC, registered at police station Tilak Nagar,
Mumbai.
Facts in brief are as under :
2.
Complainant Tara Malvankar lodged report that she wanted to
purchase a house at Mumbai. One Advocate introduced her with the
present applicant Vinay Angane. He had assured to allot the house to
B.A.1199/2022
..2..
Order
her under MMRDA scheme and demanded Rs.15 lacs within one month.
Accordingly, complainant deposited Rs.15,22,670/ in the account of
the applicant.
But the applicant neither handover the possession of
house nor refunded the amount of the complainant. The cheques issued
by him were dishonoured. Based on these allegations offence came to
be registered against the accused.
3.
Mr. Pandey Advocate for applicant/accused has submitted that
applicant is falsely implicated in this case. He had no intention to cheat
the complainant but because of the lock down due to Covid19 he could
not arrange for the repayment of the amount and hence cheques were
dishonoured. Now the investigation is completed and chargesheet is
filed in the Court.
The earlier bail application were rejected by
Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Court also. It is submitted by
the advocate for the accused that the Metropolitan Magistrate has not
considered
his
citation.
Hence,
he
prayed
to
release
the
applicant/accused on bail.
4.
Ms. Manjushri Golhar, APP for the State has submitted that
offence is serious. Already one crime no.204/2002 under section 420 is
registered against the applicant and the present applicant is absconding
accused in the said crime. Therefore, if the accused is released on bail
there is every likelihood of committing similar kind of offence in the
future. Hence, she prayed to reject the application.
5.
I perused case diary and heard the counsel for the applicant and
A.P.P. for the State. I have gone through the Law laid down in respect
of grant or refusal of bail, in following cases by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court :
B.A.1199/2022
..3..
Order
1]
Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., 2011 (13) SCALE 107,(2012) 1
SCC 40;
2]
Moti Ram Vs State of M.P., MANU/SC/0132/1978
(1978) 4 SCC47;
3]
Babu Singh Vs State of U.P., MANU/SC/0059/1978 :
(1978) 1 SCC 579;
4]
Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan,
MANU/SC/8394/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra,
MANU/SC/1021/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 694,
6]
Vivek KumarVs State of U. P., MANU/SC/0890/2000
(2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi,
MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi,
MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.(1978)1 SCC 118.
11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002)3 SCC
598
13]
Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.
14]
Neeru Yadav vs State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 3703
15]
Sharad Kumar..Vs…C.B.I, MANU/DE/2374/2011
:
and considered following factors while deciding this bail application :
(i)
Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
B.A.1199/2022
..4..
Order
(ii)
Nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)
Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)
Character, Behaviour, Means, Position and Standing of the
accused;
(vi)
Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with
and
(viii) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
6]
In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the case
diary. On perusal of the same, it is found that the present applicant has
received the amount of more than 15 lacs from the complainant on the
pretext of providing her the house under MMRDA scheme.
But he did
not fulfilled the same and when complainant demanded the refund of
money he issued the cheques which were dishonoured. This clearly
shows the intention of applicant to cheat the complainant. Not only
this, already one crime no.204/2002 under section 420 is registered
against the applicant and the present applicant is absconding accused in
the said crime.
The advocate of the accused relied upon Sanjay
Chandra Vs C.B.I., 2011 (13) SCALE 107,(2012) 1
SCC 40;
Dataram Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Supreme Ccourt Cases 22.
and
(2018) 3
I have gone through the law laid down in
above cases. There can not be a straight jacket formula while deciding
the bail application. The seriousness of offence and its gravity,
possibility of repetition of crime in future and effect of grant of refusal
of the bail on the society at large is required to be considered. In the
present case in my hand, the complainant lady is cheated by huge
B.A.1199/2022
..5..
amount by the applicant.
Order
Hence, he is not entitled for the bail.
Therefore, I pass following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1199/2022 is rejected and disposed of
accordingly.
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO MENJOGE
MENJOGE
Date:
2022.06.06
17:08:33 +0530
( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 06.06.2022.
: 06.06.2022.
: 06.06.2022.
B.A.1199/2022
..6..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
06.06.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
No.)
S.M. MENJOGE, Addl. Judge.,City Civil &
Sessions Court, (C.R.No.17).
Date of pronouncement of /Order
06.06.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
06.06.2022.
order uploaded on
06.06.2022.