Bail Application No.1584/2022.
MHCC020085872022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1584 OF 2022.
IN
C.R. NO. 56 OF 2021.
Zorin Anil Solanki @ Kshitij Desai
… Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of West Region Cyber Police
Station, Vide C.R.No. 56/2021.)
…Respondent.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Vishal Yadav a/w Adv. Mr. Sharad Raut for the
applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Anand Sukhdeve for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 19TH JULY, 2022
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Zorin Anil Solanki @
Kshitij Desai being accused in C.R.No. 56/2021 registered with West
region Cyber Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as,
“IPC”) read with Sections 66(D) and 67 of the Information Technology
Act (hereinafter referred as, “IT Act”), seeks bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.1584/2022.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.
Informant Prinee Morkar is working as a physiotherapist
since last 4 years. Most concluding with her education and as she had
settled in her profession she decided to get married. Accordingly, the
informant had registered her profile on a matrimonial site namely
Shaadi.com. From the said site, the informant was in receipt of a
proposal from the Applicant/accused pertaining to marriage. In the
meantime, the profile of the informant got expired on the said
matrimonial site. Thereafter, the informant received a friend request on
the social platform Facebook. Accordingly, the informant shared her
number with that of the Applicant/accused and thereafter they got
introduced to each other wherein the Applicant/accused apprised the
informant that he was a stock broker by profession and that if she is
interested she could invest such amount in stocks and that the Applicant
accused would earn a good return for her. Thus, in view of the said
assurance and out of faith the informant, her sister, brother and 1 of the
close friend for several times during the period of 9 th of November 2021
until 29th of November 2021 transferred an amount to the tune of
nearly 20 lakhs and 60,000 as suggested by the Applicant/accused on
various numbers by way of Google pay. Thereafter, when the informant
and required about such returns as assured by the Applicant/accused he
gave evasive answers and also abused her. Accordingly, the informant
lodged a complaint and office was registered against the Applicant
accused under this section ibid.
3.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
allegations leveled against the Applicant/accused does not hold any
substance at all and that the Applicant/accused is falsely implicated. It
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.1584/2022.
is further stated that the identity of the Applicant/accused has been
misused by his friends as his friends that is the coaccused in the present
case had created a profile/account on Shaadi.com and had obtained the
mobile number of the informant under a false pretext of marriage using
the identity of Applicant/accused. It is also stated that the
Applicant/accused is an investor and also helps others in deriving the
share market strategies for such investment and that he is not a
recipient of any amount from the informant or her relatives. The lower
advocate for Applicant/accused states that the entire crime is document
based and that they are already seized by the Respondent agency and
there is no such apprehension pertaining to tampering of evidence at
this juncture and therefore the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused
prayed for enlargement of the applicant/accused on bail.
4.
Per contra the Prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, on perusal of the criminal record of the
Applicant/accused it is evident that he has prior to such similar
antecedents, and therefore is habitual of conducting such offences. It is
further stated that during the course of investigation it has revealed that
many such other victim girls who are proposed for their marriage are
cheated by the Applicant accused in a similar way. It is also stated that
the chargesheet is already filed and postfiling of chargesheet the
application filed by the Applicant/accused is rejected by the learned
trial court. Also, the sum involved in the crime is yet to be recovered.
Further, the prosecution apprehends for a racket and therefore, the
prosecution apprehends abscondance and tampering of evidence at the
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.1584/2022.
hands of applicant/accused if enlarged on bail. Lastly, Ld. Prosecutor
prayed for rejection of application.
5.
Heard Ld. Advocate for Applicant/accused, and learned
prosecutor for the state. Perused application and reply.
6.
On meticulous examination of case record it is evident that,
admittedly a matrimonial account on Shaadi.com was registered by the
Applicant/accused. It is the case of the Applicant/accused that his
friends have misused his identity and have registered his profile on the
said matrimonial site without his knowledge. In this regard, the learned
prosecutor states that there are telephonic communications between the
Applicant/accused and the informant and in this concern considering
the defence, it has went unexplained that if such matrimonial account
of the Applicant/accused was registered by the friends of the
Applicant/accused, then in that case, how come the Applicant/accused
was in communication with that of the informant. Therefore, in prima
facie the theory laid by the Applicant/accused cannot be accepted.
Secondly, it is also evident that similar such offences are also registered
against the Applicant/accused.
7.
While deciding an application for bail it is settled that the
Court is required to see whether the primafacie case exists or not. It is
not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits of
prosecution case.
8.
Therefore, the theory laid by the prosecution at this
juncture holds bearing more especially in the light of the fact that the
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.1584/2022.
Applicant/accused is well accustomed for such acts and has with proper
planning asked the informant to transfer such sum by Google pay upon
various numbers as tendered by him to the informant. It is also stated
that similar such offences are registered against the Applicant/accused
and it has revealed during the course of investigation that such other
victim girls are cheated by him in similar fashion. Thus, considering the
same, the role of the applicant/accused has been clearly established and
this ipsofacto disentitles the applicant/accused from any such relief of
enlargement on bail.
Moreover, post filing of chargesheet the
applicant/accused had preferred such application before the Ld. Trial
Court
and
post
rejection
of
the
said
bail
application
the
applicant/accused has failed to explain any such substantial change in
circumstance. In view of the same, I do not find this as a fit case for
grant of bail, more especially in the light of the fact that, recovery is
pending. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, as the
application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra: –
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1584/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 19.07.2022
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.07.25
15:34:58 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 19.07.2022
Transcribed on : 20.07.2022
HHJ signed on : 22.07.2022
Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.1584/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
25.07.2022
03.33 p.m.
Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
19.07.2022
of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
22.07.2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
25.07.2022
Page 6 of 6