MHNS010055682022
Order below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail
Application No. 1332/2022.
1.

This is an application preferred by applicant/accused Ajinkya
Rajendra Sope for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No. I­184/2022
registered in Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik for the offence
punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2.

It is submitted by the accused that he is innocent and falsely
implicated in the crime. It is alleged that accused has opened bank
account of the impersonated person and he has signing as witness on the
forged sale deed not in his own name but as Ajay Kaskar. Allegations are
also made that he is in receipt of Rs.86,000/­ in the fraudulent
transaction. Bail application after filing of charge­sheet has been rejected.
Main accused i.e. Radhika Patil has been granted bail by the Hon’ble High
Court and co­accused Mukesh Gangurde has been granted bail by Sessions
Court. There has been change of circumstances. Applicant has moved this
second application after filing of charge­sheet. He contends that prima
facie case is not made against him. Nothing has to be recovered from him.
Charge­sheet has been already filed. Co­accused Advocate Swati Patil has
been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court. He is ready to
abide by the terms and conditions. Hence, prayed that application is
granted.
3.

Say was called of the investigating officer. He has objected
this application on the count that, present accused has signed as witness to
the forged document as Ajay Kaskar. He has open the bank account of the
impersonated person Suresh Kale. Accused has also received Rs.83,000/­
from co­accused Radhika Patil and her relatives.

Investigation with
respect to said aspect is yet pending. They have to inquire about the bank
document obtained in the name of impersonated person. Wanted accused
Nilesh Murtdak is yet to be arrested and inquired. Hence, prayed that
application be rejected.
4.

Heard Ld. APP and Ld. Advocate for accused. It is submitted
by the Advocate for the accused that the main accused Radhika Patil,
Swati Patil are on bail whereas Mukesh Gangurde is also released. No
purpose will be served in keeping him behind the bar. Offences are not
attracted to him. Trial will take time. Hence, prayed that bail be granted.
On the other hand Ld. APP has objected this application on the count that,
absconding accused are yet to be arrested. There is involvement of the
present accused. Investigation is pending. Hence, prayed that application
be rejected.
5.

At the outset the earlier bail application was rejected on the
count that investigation is in progress. It is seen that Hon’ble High Court
has granted bail to Radhika Patil and Advocate Swati Patil. It is also seen
that co­accused Sanjiv Chaudhari who has prepared the bogus document
has been released on bail. Accused can prefer successive bail application
however there has to be change in circumstances to consider the
application.

It is seen that earlier bail application was rejected as
investigation was in progress. Now the charge­sheet has been filed as well
as main accused have been granted bail as stated above. Co­accused Sanjiv
Chaudhari who is the similarly charged has been granted bail, hence, the
role of the present accused cannot be said to be greater. In such
circumstances trial will take time as well as on the count of parity present
application will be required to be taken into consideration. Apprehension
of the I.O. can be taken care by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, I
proceed to pass following order :­
ORDER
1.

The application is allowed.

2.

The applicant/accused Ajinkya Rajendra Sope involved in C. R. No.
I­184/2022 registered in Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik for
the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his
executing P.R. and S.B. of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of like amount.

3.

The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or
Police Officer.

4.

The accused shall mark his presence in Mumbai Naka Police Station
as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the
charge­sheet against co­accused.

5.

The accused shall not commit similar type of offence.

6.

The accused shall furnish address proof of his local address as well
as his permanent address, photo identity and mobile number of self
and his two close relatives with their address proof. In case of
change of address he shall inform the I.O. about the same.

7.

In case of breach of the conditions, the respondent is at liberty to
apply for cancellation of bail.

Nashik.
Date : 05/11/2022.

Sd/­xxx
(V.S.Malkalpatte­Reddy)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.