Mumbai, May 17, 2024 – Nagesh Malhari Ohal, accused in a cheating case involving the purchase of a MHADA flat, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge Vishal S. Gaike, presiding over Court Room No. 32, allowed Ohal’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 1125 of 2024), citing the inordinate delay in his trial.

Ohal was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 159 of 2022, registered at Shivaji Park Police Station, for offenses under sections 420 (cheating) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and Arrest:

According to the prosecution, complainant Mangala Pol was searching for accommodation in Worli, Mumbai. Accused Asha Kokitkar and Uday Gawade, introduced by a mutual acquaintance, promised to help her purchase a MHADA room. Pol paid a token amount and subsequently transferred substantial sums of money to the accused. Ohal was later introduced as a contact who would complete the remaining work, and Pol transferred additional funds to his account. When the accused failed to deliver the flat and did not refund the money, Pol filed a complaint. Ohal was arrested on October 8, 2022.

Defense Arguments:

Ohal, through his advocate Neetu Singh, argued that he was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged crime. He emphasized that he was the sole breadwinner for his family and that co-accused Kokitkar and Gawade had been granted anticipatory bail. He pointed out that the charge sheet had been filed in December 2022, but charges had not yet been framed, and he had been in custody for over a year and a half. He argued that the delay was not attributable to him and that his right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP S.D. Gawde, opposed the bail application. They argued that Ohal had received a significant portion of the cheated amount and that he might threaten witnesses or abscond if released.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Gaike, after considering the submissions and documents, focused on the delay in the trial. He noted that the charge sheet was filed in December 2022, but charges had not been framed as of May 2024. He cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Judge Gaike concluded that the delay was not due to Ohal’s fault and that his right to a speedy trial had been infringed. He granted bail solely on the ground of the inordinate delay in the trial.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Ohal bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹25,000 with a provisional cash surety of the same amount for eight weeks.
• He must furnish one or two solvent sureties of ₹25,000 in the Trial Court after eight weeks.
• He must provide his detailed address, mobile/contact number, address proof, and identity proof.
• He must inform the Trial Court and police of any change in his residence or mobile/contact number.
• He must regularly attend the Trial Court unless exempted.
• He must not leave Mumbai City and its suburban districts without the Trial Court’s permission.
• He must not threaten or pressurize the complainant or witnesses.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
• Bail must be furnished before the Trial Court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Right to Speedy Trial: The court recognized the fundamental right to a speedy trial and granted bail due to the inordinate delay.
• Balancing Liberty and Justice: The court balanced the accused’s right to liberty with the need for a fair trial.
• Delay Not Attributable to Accused: The court considered that the delay was not caused by the accused.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the trial.

This ruling underscores the importance of timely trials and the court’s commitment to protecting the accused’s fundamental rights.