MHCC020004742022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2022
(CRIME NO. 472 OF 2021, TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION)
CNR No.MHCC020004742021
Sachin Bomble S/o. Prakash Bomble
Age : 42 years,
At Flat no. CNE 104, Shat Tarka Flats,
Surendra Nagar, Nagpur
Presently confined at Thane Prison
]
]
]
]
]
… Applicant/
Accused
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(through Tilak Nagar Police Station).
]
]
… Respondent
Appearances :
Mr. Ajit Birajdar, Ld. Adv. for applicant.
Mr. Suryawanshi, Ld. A.P.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : PURUSHOTTAM B. JADHAV,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO.22.
DATE : 2 nd February, 2022.
ORDER
1.
This is second regular bail application. The State resisted it
by filing say at Exh. 2. Read the application and say. Heard both the
sides. Perused the record.
2.
Ld. APP submitted that there is no change in circumstance
and therefore, application cannot be allowed. Ld. Advocate for the
Addl. Sessions Judge
2
BA 96/2022
applicant submitted that now the investigation is completed,
chargesheet is filed and the applicant is in custody for five months. He
also submitted that coaccused is already released on bail. So far as,
this submission is concerned, it cannot be said that completion of the
investigation and filing of the chargsheet are change in circumstances.
It is not the case that there is no case for the alleged offence. The
applicant is chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section
406, 420 and 409 of Indian Penal Code. The coaccused is
chargesheeted under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The role of
both accused are different. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Offence under
Section 409 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for
life or upto 10 years. Therefore, the length of custody of five months
cannot be said change in circumstance. Considering the discussion, it is
clear that the applicant failed to show change in circumstance since
rejection of first bail application. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
His application deserves to be rejection. Accordingly, I pass following
order
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No. 96 of 2022 is hereby
rejected and disposed of.
Date : 02/02/2022.
Directly typed on Computer on
Printed on
Signed on
Addl. Sessions Judge
( Purushottam B. Jadhav )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
GREATER MUMBAI.
: 02/02/2022.
: 02/02/2022.
: 02/02/2022
3
BA 96/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
02/02/2022 at 3.40 p.m.
NAME OF TYPIST
V.D.BHOSALE
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri. Purushottam
Room No.22)
Jadhav (Court Room No.22)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 02/02/2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
02/02/2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
02/02/2022.
Addl. Sessions Judge
B.