:1:
Order on BA No.473/24
MHCC020032022024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.473 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.10 of 2024
Ajay Kisanrao Munde
Age : 19 years, Occ : Labour
Residing at s/o Sham Nagar,
Latur-413512.

]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Kanjur Marg Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Harshali Bhavsar for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 16th March, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Ajay Kisanrao Munde resident of Latur, under Section 439 of The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail.

2.

A case being C.R. No.10 of 2024 is registered with Kanjur
Marg Police Station against the present Applicant for the offence
punishable under Sections 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
:2:
Order on BA No.473/24
1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) as well as Sections 66(C),
66(D) of The Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter
referred as “IT Act”).
3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
Exhibit No.02.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
On 28.12.2023, at about 9.00 p.m. to 29.12.2023 till 3.30
p.m., accused by applying electronic material, suppressing his
identity, hack the account of face-book friend of the informant
and thereby, made contact with informant. She was told that, her
obscene / nude photos are viraled and sent a link to the
informant to see the same. Under the pretext to verify those
photos, accused has taken selfie photo of the informant and hack
her account. He has grab the total amount of Rs.50,996/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Six only) from the
informant under the pretext to delete her obscene photos from
the face-book and thereby, cheated her. A specific UPI, account
number was of one Rohit Kshirsagar, resident of Ambejogai, Beed.
5.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant
has no concern with the alleged offence. He came to be
apprehended only on the basis of suspect. Actual offender’s name
is mentioned in the report. He is not arrested. No prima facie case
made out against the applicant. He is behind bar for substantial
:3:
Order on BA No.473/24
period. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant be released
on bail.
7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP objected the bail application on the ground
that, the offence committed by the applicant / accused is serious
in nature. Investigation is in progress. The applicant has
committed same type of offence before this one. C.R. No.124/23
to that effect is pending at V. P. Road Police Station. Thus,
applicant is habitual offender. Thereby, it is submitted that the
the application filed by the applicant for grant of bail be rejected.

8.

On perusal of record it reveals that, the offence is committed
by using electronic appliances and through the social media. Face
of actual culprit was certainly not visible even to informant.
During the investigation, applicant came to be arrested on the
basis of his mobile number. It revealed that, the said mobile
number is attached to the account number which is mentioned in
the report. Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of
one witness, who identified applicant to be the same person, who
requested him to give him cash amount of Rs.50,000/- which was
transferred to his account by google pay. The said fact is linked
with the transaction in the report and the accused.

9.

Nature of offence allegedly committed by the applicant is
certainly not only serious but it is heinous one. Investigation of
the offence is quite complicated and is based on electronic media.
Conduct of the applicant is shown by the prosecution that he is
habitual of committing such type of offences. Considering all
these aspects, this Court does not find any irregularity / illegality
:4:
Order on BA No.473/24
in the order passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.53,
Mulund. No interference is thus called for. Therefore, the
application filed by the applicant being devoid of merit, deserves
to be rejected. Hence, the order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.473 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant Ajay Kisanrao Munde in connection with C.R. No.10 of
2024 is registered with Kanjur Marg Police Station against the
present Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 419,
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 66(C),
66(D) of The Information Technology Act, 2000 is hereby
rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.473 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 16/03/2024
Mumbai
sd/(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 16/03/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 16/03/2024
:5:
Order on BA No.473/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
19.03.2024 at 12.00 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
16.03.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
16.03.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
19.03.2024