Mumbai, February 2, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has rejected the second bail application of Sachin Bomble, accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. Additional Sessions Judge Purushottam B. Jadhav, presiding over Court Room No. 22, denied the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 96 of 2022), citing the absence of any change in circumstances since the rejection of his first bail application.

Bomble was arrested in connection with Crime No. 472 of 2021, registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station, for offenses under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Defense Arguments:

Bomble, through his advocate Ajit Birajdar, argued that the investigation was completed, the charge sheet was filed, and he had been in custody for five months. He also argued that a co-accused had been granted bail, suggesting parity.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Suryawanshi, opposed the bail application, arguing that there was no change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Jadhav, after hearing arguments and reviewing the record, made the following observations:

• Completion of Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet: The court stated that these did not constitute a change in circumstances.
• Parity: The court rejected the argument of parity, noting that Bomble was charged under sections 406, 420, and 409 of the IPC, while the co-accused was charged under section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property). The court emphasized that the roles and charges of the two accused were different.
• Length of Custody: The court stated that five months of custody did not constitute a change in circumstances, especially considering that the offense under section 409 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or up to 10 years.
• No Change in Circumstances: The court concluded that Bomble failed to show any change in circumstances since the rejection of his first bail application.

Judge Jadhav concluded that Bomble was not entitled to bail and rejected his application.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Change in Circumstances: The court stressed that a second bail application can only be allowed if there is a significant change in circumstances since the rejection of the first application.
• Parity: The court clarified that parity is not automatically granted and depends on the similarity of roles and charges.
• Seriousness of Offense: The court considered the seriousness of the offense and the potential punishment.

This ruling underscores the court’s strict adherence to the principle of “no change in circumstances” when considering second bail applications.