1
B.A.1096/24
MHCC020068372024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.1096 OF 2024
Vinaykumar @ Ravishankar @ Rahul Goyal
Age 32 years, Residing at Block No.7,
Room No.460, Near Trilokpuri Chand,
Cinema, Delhi (E) 110091.

….Applicant
– Versus The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of DCB, CID Unit-6
(Corresponding C.R.No.61/20,
Vile Parle Police Station))
.… Respondent
Appearance :Adv. Roshni Singh for the Applicant/accused.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the State present.

CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 07/05/2024
ORDER
This is bail application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of
The Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection
with C.R.No.61/2020 registered with DCB CID Unit-6 (Corresponding
C.R.No.61/20, Vile Parle Police Station) for the commission of offences
punishable u/sec.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of The Indian
Penal Code.

2
2.

B.A.1096/24
It is the contention of the applicant / accused that he is
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is
arrested on 30.10.2020. The applicant / accused submits that he has
undergone custodial interrogation. The investigation is completed.
Charge-sheet is filed. The applicant is the only 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 Rajendra Mandvia
lodged report that he is doing business of LIC agent. One Rahul Shukla
called him and informed about various insurance policies therefore, the
informant obtained various insurance policies. Lateron he decided to
surrender those policies. He received Rs.18,02,922/-, in his bank
account. Amount of Rs.2,87,000/- is remained unpaid. To receive this
amount the accused asked him certain amounts and made him to
deposit Rs.3,88,10,988/- in various bank accounts. Therefore, report is
3
B.A.1096/24
lodged and offence is registered.
6.

According to the prosecution the applicant / accused
created forged PAN card, Election card. By using said PAN card he
opened bank account. According to the prosecution the loss in the said
fraud is Rs.3,88,10,988/-. The ld advocate for the applicant / accused
submitted that by the order in bail application No.945 of 2023 this
court has rejected the bail of this applicant. She further submits that by
order dated 13.03.2024 the bail has been granted to Rajeshkumar
Kashyap. She further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
granted bail to Priyadarshi by order dated 18.01.2023. I considered
orders of bail granted to Rajeshkumar Kashyap and Priyadarshi
Gambhir. The applicant has been arrested on 30.10.2020. His last bail
application was rejected by this court on 01.07.2023 vide bail
application No.945 of 2023. Thereafter, this court has allowed the bail
application of Rajeshkumar Kashyap. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
allowed the bail of Priyadarshi Gambhir. Therefore, the applicant prays
for parity. I considered the facts on record. It is the contention in the
reply that the accounts were opened with the help and instruction of
Priyadarshi to whom the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail. In
the reply it is alleged that the applicant has received commission for the
opening of said accounts. Therefore, role attributed to the present
applicant is lesser than Priyadarshi. At the most it can be equated with
Rajeshkumar Kashyap. Both the accused are enlarged on bail. Hence, on
the ground of parity this applicant / accused is entitled for the bail. In
the result, I pass the following order :
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.1096 of 2024 is allowed.

4
2.

B.A.1096/24
Applicant / accused Vinaykumar @ Ravishankar @ Rahul Goyal
arrested in Crime Number 61/2020 registered at DCB CID Unit-6
(Corresponding C.R.No.61/20, Vile Parle Police Station), Mumbai for
the commission of offences punishable u/sec. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
120(B), 34 of The Indian Penal Code. be released on bail on furnishing
P.B. and S.B. of Rs.30,000/- with one or more sureties.
3.

The applicant / accused shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence in any manner.
4.

The applicant / accused shall attend the the dates of hearing
before the trial court strictly unless exempted.
5.

The applicant / accused shall furnish details of his contact
number and current address to the concerned investigation officer. He
shall undertake to intimate to the concern Investigation Officer / Court
if, there is any change in such details in future.
6.

The applicant / accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
7.

Bail before the jurisdictional court.
RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Date : 07/05/2024
Dictated on
Transcribe on
Signed by HHJ on
: 07.05.2024
: 08.05.2024
: 10.05.2024
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Date: 2024.05.10
13:45:20 +0530
( RAJESH A. SASNE)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

5
B.A.1096/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
10/05/2024
1.33 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri.
Room No.)
R.A. SASNE, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 07/05/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
10/05/2024
ORDER uploaded on
10/05/2024