Mumbai, February 23, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has denied bail to Ajay Ashok Sawant, accused in a cheating case. Additional Judge G.B. Gurao, presiding over Court Room No. 17, rejected Sawant’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 199 of 2022), citing his status as a habitual offender with a similar modus operandi in multiple cases.

Sawant was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 20/2021, registered at Chembur Police Station, for offenses under section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of¹ the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, on February 22, 2021, the complainant, Harish, a 60-year-old man, was walking towards Sion Koliwada when he was approached by Sawant and a co-accused. Though Harish did not know them, they engaged him in conversation and persuaded him to place his gold chain, gold bracelet, and ring in a bag. The accused then returned the bag to Harish and left. Upon opening the bag, Harish discovered that the gold chain and ring were missing.

Defense Arguments:

Sawant, through his advocate Mr. Sanjay Jadhav, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He emphasized that no recovery was made from him and that the co-accused had been granted bail. He requested the court to release Sawant on bail.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Mr. Ramesh Siroya, opposed the bail application. They argued that the offense was serious, Sawant was a habitual offender, and his release would lead to him absconding. They requested the court to reject the application.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Gurao, after reviewing the FIR, documents, and the prosecution’s reply, made the following observations:

• Co-Accused Bail: The court acknowledged that the co-accused, Vijay Tambe, had been granted bail.
• No Recovery: The court noted that no recovery was made from Sawant.
• Habitual Offender: The court highlighted that approximately nine offenses were registered against Sawant at various police stations under section 420 read with 34 of the IPC.
• Similar Modus Operandi: The court observed that Sawant’s modus operandi was similar in all the registered offenses.
• Vulnerable Victim: The court noted that the complainant was an elderly person, and Sawant had cheated him, causing wrongful loss.
• Antecedents: The court emphasized that Sawant’s antecedents were not clear, despite the co-accused being released on bail.
• Serious Offense: The court considered the offense to be serious.

Judge Gurao concluded that Sawant was not entitled to bail and rejected his application.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• The significance of the accused’s criminal antecedents and habitual offender status.
• The seriousness of offenses involving vulnerable victims.
• The consideration of the accused’s modus operandi in similar cases.
• That even if a co-accused is granted bail, that does not guarantee that another accused will be granted bail, especially if their criminal record is substantial.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly when the accused has a history of similar offenses.