BA7082022
1
DT.17.05.2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.708 OF 2022
IN
C.R.NO.232 of 2019
Mr.Tejal Madhukar Rupji
Aged: 51 years, Indian Inhabitant
Having office at C26,3,Shriram
Industrial Estate, G.D.Ambekar,
Marg, Kidwai Nagar, Wadala,
Mumbai 400 039.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Applicant/
(Org.Accused No.2)
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
R.A.Kidwai Marg Police Station,
Mumbai.
)
)
)
Respondent.
Mr.Mangesh Deshmukh Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused No.2.
Shri. Ajit Chavan, Ld. APP for State/Respondent
CORAM : HHJ SMT CHITRA HANKARE
DATE : 17.05.2022
C.R.NO.10
ORDER
1.
This second bail application is filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as “Cr.P.C..” in short) for
grant of bail in C.R. no.232/2019 registered by R.A.Kidwai Marg police
station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as “I.P.C..” in short).
2.
Facts of the case are that the informant along with his aunt doing
BA7082022
2
DT.17.05.2022
business of rental cars. For purchasing house he has contacted Rupji
Constructions Sales Manager. He has agreed to purchase their flat and
paid token amount of Rs.10 lakhs by two cheques. As per demand of Rupji
Constructions he has again given cheque of Rs.25 lakhs. The agreement
was registered on 24.09.2013. However builder neglected to give relevant
documents for obtaining loan. Then he has given letter to builder for
giving documents. They have replied that agreement was cancelled. He
came to know that he was cheated. He met father of the applicant/accused
i.e. accused No.2 he disclosed that transaction is with his son. Finally he
filed proceeding before the Consumer Court. Then he came to know that
builder sold said flat to another person. Therefore he lodged the
complaint.
3.
The accused has filed second bail application on the ground of parity
as his father accused No.1 was released by the Hon’ble High Court. There
is no one to lookafter his aged mother. Accused is also harping on other
grounds for bail. He has also claimed bail on the merits of the case.
4.
Prosecution objected application on the ground that accused is
undergoing punishment awarded by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum. Therefore investigation could not be done. The total amount for
which accused cheated is about Rs.52,50,000/ which is not yet recovered.
Many offences are pending against him. If he is released on bail he will
pressurize witnesses and also abscond.
5.
Heard both advocates.
BA7082022
6.
3
DT.17.05.2022
Except release of other accused on bail there are no change in
circumstances to file this bail application. On perusing bail application of
accused No.1, it appears that he was released on bail considering his
health condition, situation of Pandemic COVID19 as well as his age. No
such ground is available to this accused. Therefore ground of parity is not
applicable to this accused.
7.
In this case informant has given all the amount by cheque and also
agreement was registered in their name. Inspite of that accused along with
other accused sold same flat to another person. As the accused is
undergoing sentence awarded by the Consumer Forum police could not get
custody of accused in this case therefore no recovery was made.Though ld.
Advocate for accused submitted that unless he came out of jail he cannot
return the money, the returning of money is not the only issue. He has
cheated several persons. Many offences are pending against him. There is
likelihood of repetition of similar type of offences again as well as
pressurizing of witnesses if released on bail. Yet investigation is in
progress.
8.
It is pertinent to note that yet police could not get custody of
accused. There is no recovery of amount from accused. Payment was made
by cheque was received by accused. Huge amount is involved. He is
already convicted by one of the court. Many cases are pending against him.
The nature of offence is very serious and so many persons are cheated by
applicant/accused. The grounds for bail are not satisfactory. Considering
all above circumstances, he is not entitled for bail. Hence I proceed to pass
BA7082022
4
DT.17.05.2022
following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No.708 of 2022 is rejected.
Date : 17.05.2022
Dictated on : 17.05.2022
Typed on : 18.05.2022
Signed on : 19.05.2022
(CHITRA HANKARE)
Addl. Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Mumbai
BA7082022
5
DT.17.05.2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
03.06.2022 10.45 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(V. S. Shinde )
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SMT.C.R.HANKARE
(C.R. No.10)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
17.05.2022
of
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 19.5.2022
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
03.06.2022