Mumbai, May 10, 2024 – Mangala Raju Panchal has been granted bail by the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, in an arson and criminal intimidation case. Judge Aditee Uday Kadam (Court Room No. 7) issued the order on May 9, 2024.
Panchal was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 24 of 2024, registered at the Kanjur Marg Police Station, for offenses under Sections 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others),1 506 (criminal intimidation) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code2 (IPC).
Background and Allegations:
The complainant alleged that she purchased a hut from Panchal in 2014. Over the past month, Panchal and two others had been pressuring her to vacate the hut, abusing and assaulting her. On February 6, 2024, the complainant discovered her house on fire and alleged that Panchal and her accomplices had set it ablaze. They also allegedly threatened neighbors who attempted to help.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Rao Ranjeet Shripat, representing Panchal, argued that there was a prior property dispute between the parties and that the allegations were baseless. He stated that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and that Panchal was arrested on February 6, 2024. He emphasized that there were no recoveries or discoveries from Panchal and that she is a woman.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Seema Deshpande, representing the State, opposed the bail, arguing that Panchal had a tendency to commit such offenses. They cited prior non-cognizable (NC) offenses against her for allotting huts and then forcibly evicting residents after receiving payment. Witness statements supported the complainant’s case, and the investigation was ongoing.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Kadam noted that this was a successive bail application, with the first one having been rejected on merit due to Panchal’s prima facie involvement in the alleged offense. The court also acknowledged the NC offenses against Panchal, indicating a pattern of conduct.
However, the court observed that the charge sheet had been filed, indicating the completion of the investigation. The court also noted that Panchal’s role was secondary to the primary accused.
The court considered that Panchal is a local resident, willing to abide by conditions, and a woman who had been in custody for a significant period.
Bail Conditions:
Panchal was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:
- Panchal is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of Rs. 50,000 for three months.
- She is prohibited from entering the vicinity where the complainant resides until the end of the trial.
- She must comply with surety requirements before the concerned court.
- She must be available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer when required, with written intimation.
- She must not tamper with prosecution evidence or pressurize witnesses.
- She must provide her contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and keep him updated of any changes.
- She must attend all trial dates regularly.
Order Details:
The order was dictated and signed on May 9, 2024. The certified copy was uploaded on May 10, 2024, at 3:57 p.m.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the filed charge sheet, Panchal’s limited role, her status as a woman, and the imposition of conditions to ensure her compliance with the legal process.