B.A.No. 332/24.

1
Order.

MHCC020023482024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 08-02-2024
: 08-02-2024
: 13-02-2024
: 0 years, 0 months, 5 days
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY,
AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 332 OF 2024
Vinod Kashi Ram Kumar,
Age : 37 years, Occ – Service
R/at – F/1/16, D.D.A Flats, Sector – 4,
Rohini Sector – 7, North West Delhi,
Delhi – 110085
…Applicant/Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of :
(The Sr. P.I. DCB CID, Unit No.3, Mumbai,
Maharashtra, C.R.No. 3/2023)
Wadala Police Station, C.R.No. 5/2023)
…Respondent
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI S.D.KULKARNI,
ADHOC ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2024.
Anees Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Shri Lade, APP for the State/Respondent.
ORDER
1.

This is an application filed by the applicant/accused under
B.A.No. 332/24.

2
Order.

Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in
connection with C.R.No. 03/2023 registered with DCB CID Unit-3
(Wadala Police Station, Mumbai, C.R.No.5/2023) for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 120(B), 201, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 66(c) and (d) of information
Technology Act.
2.

It is alleged by the applicant/accused that he is innocent
and falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of concocted
story and without any material substance. Applicant/accused is not the
beneficiary of the crime and not a single penny is recovered from him.
The applicant/accused was arrested only on the basis of suspicion.
There is no criminal antecedents at his discredit. Nothing remains to be
seized or recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused.
Investigation is almost over in the matter. Therefore, applicant/accused
prayed for releasing him on bail.
3.

The prosecution resisted the application by filing reply vide
Exh.2. The contention of the prosecution that notice was issued to the
applicant/accused as per section 41(a)(1) of Cr.P.C. but neither he cooperated nor he appeared before the investigation agency. The accused
persons are resident of other state, therefore if released on bail, there is
possibility of flee from justice. The applicant/accused is beneficiary of
crime and misappropriated amount is yet to be recovered from him. If
applicant/accused is released on bail, there is possibility of repetition of
similar crime as well as threatening prosecution witnesses and
tampering prosecution evidence. Hence, prosecution prayed for
rejection of application.

B.A.No. 332/24.

4.

3
Order.

Perused application and say filed by the prosecution. Heard
both the advocates at length.
5.

The advocate for the accused relied on the ratio laid down
in the case of Shri P. Chidambaram V/s. Central Bureau Of Investigation
(AIR 2019 Supreme Court 5272), therein the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that –
“The appellant is in custody from 21.08.2019 for about two
months. The co-accused were already granted bail. The
appellant is said to be aged 74 years and is also said to be
suffering from age related health problems. Considering the
above factors and the facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be granted
bail.”
On relying on the above authority, contention of the advocate for the
applicant/accused that the other co-accused were already released on
bail, therefore on the ground of parity also applicant/accused is entitled
to be released on bail.
6.

I have gone through the reply filed by the prosecution.

Therein it is mentioned by the prosecution that the applicant/accused is
resident of Delhi, therefore, there are chances of flee from justice and
absconding. The another objection of prosecution is that some amount
was transferred in the bank account of applicant/accused from the
various accounts and it is to be seized. It is further alleged that detailed
investigation is necessary considering the nature of the crime, hence
prayed for rejection of bail. It is a matter of record that
applicant/accused was arrested on 11/01/2024. He has undergone
police custody and since 14/01/2024 he is in judicial custody. So
sufficient time or opportunity available for the investigation officer to
B.A.No. 332/24.

4
Order.

seize whatever yet to be seized from the applicant/accused. Only the
accused is resident of Delhi cannot be a ground to refuse bail. So also to
seize the amount custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is not
necessary.

The
investigation
officer
mentioned
that
detailed
investigation is required in the crime, so matter can be investigated
without keeping accused behind the bar. The majority part of the
investigation is already over. The applicant/accused is in judicial
custody since long. So it will take considerable time to commence and
conclude the trial. It is not just and proper to keep the accused behind
the bar till conclusion of trial. Therefore, accused is entitled to be
released on the bail. Considering this, I pass the following order :
– ORDER 1.

Bail Application No. 332/2024 is allowed.

2.
Applicant/accused Vinod Kashi Ram Kumar arrested in C.R.No.
3/2023 (C.R.No. 5/2023 of Wadala Police Station) under Sections 419,
420, 120(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 66(c)
and (d) of information Technology Act registered at DCB CID Unit-3 be
released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- with one or
more surety/ies in the like amount.
3.
The applicant/accused is directed to give his attendance to the
concerned police station on every first Saturday of the month till further
order. He is also directed to remain present as and when called by the
investigation officer by issuing prior notice.
4.
The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence in any manner.
5.
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.
6.
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.

B.A.No. 332/24.

5
Order.

7.
The applicant/accused is directed not to involve in similar types
of offence in future.
8.

Bail before the learned Trial Court.

(S.D.KULKARNI)
Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Mumbai.

Date : 13/02/2024.

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
: 13/02/2024.
: 01/03/2024.
: 01/03/2024.
: 01/03/2024.
: 01/03/2024.
:
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
02/03/2024. 5.48 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 13/02/2024.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
01/03/2024.

Judgment/Order uploaded on
02/03/2024.