Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 22, 2024 – Sanjay Dhanaji Kamble’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a cheating and forgery case registered at the Dadar Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Kamble was arrested and charged under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document),¹ and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of² the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in connection with C.R. No. 42/2023.

The prosecution alleged that Kamble and co-accused Sandeep Surve defrauded the complainant and his relative by promising to transfer a room in an SRA building in their names for Rs. 35 lakhs and Rs. 23 lakhs respectively, but neither transferred the room nor returned the money.

Arguments Presented:

Kamble, through his advocate Sameer Pradhan, argued that:

• He was entitled to parity with co-accused Sandeep Gopinath Surve, who was recently granted bail by the same court.
• He had received Rs. 15 lakhs and repaid Rs. 10 lakhs.
• His role was similar to that of Sandeep Surve.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (Addl. P.P.) J.N. Suryawanshi, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• Kamble confessed to receiving money from the informant.
• He confessed to preparing bogus documents and submitting them to the Municipal Corporation.
• He was a Municipal Corporation employee and could tamper with evidence.
• He knew the whereabouts of an absconding accused.
• He had four prior criminal antecedents.
• He could threaten prosecution witnesses if released.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge M.G. Deshpande rejected Kamble’s bail application. The court’s primary reason for rejection was not the merits of the case itself, but rather the failure of the applicant to follow the proper legal procedure. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the hierarchy of courts in bail applications. The Court considered the following points:

• Hierarchy of Courts: The court stressed that bail applications should first be filed before the Court of First Instance (the Magistrate’s Court). Only after the Magistrate’s Court rejects the application should the accused approach the Sessions Court.
• Prior Rejection: The court noted that it had previously rejected Kamble’s bail application.
• Failure to Approach Magistrate: Despite the prior rejection and the granting of bail to Sandeep Surve, Kamble did not approach the Magistrate’s Court again. Instead, he directly filed a bail application in the Sessions Court, violating the established procedure.
• Judicial Discipline: The court emphasized that judicial discipline requires adherence to the hierarchy of courts. Allowing direct applications to the Sessions Court would circumvent the Magistrate’s Court and disrupt the legal process.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the importance of following the proper legal procedure in bail applications. The court’s emphasis on the hierarchy of courts reinforces the need for judicial discipline and ensures that bail applications are first considered by the appropriate lower court. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case, such as the parity argument, but solely on the procedural error. This case serves as a reminder to legal practitioners and accused individuals to adhere to the established legal procedures when seeking bail.