1
BA No.766 of 2020 in Spl.C. Nos.104н15, 108н15, 29н16,
12н17, 16н17, 17н17, 31н18, 74н18, 84н18, 87н18, 88н18.

IN THE CITY SESSIONS COURT AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.766 OF 2020
(CNR No.MHCC02н006451н2020)
IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.104 OF 2015
(CNR No.MHCC02н015550н2015)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.108 OF 2015
(CNR No.MHCC02н016285н2015)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.29 OF 2016
(CNR No.MHCC02н008011н2016)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.12 OF 2017
(CNR No.MHCC02н002645н2017)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.16 OF 2017
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.17 OF 2017
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.31 OF 2018
(CNR No.MHCC02н005152н2018)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.74 OF 2018
(CNR No.MHCC02н012259н2018)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.84 OF 2018
(CNR No.MHCC02н014823н2018)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.88 OF 2018.
(CNR No.MHCC02н016505н2018)
WITH
SPECIAL CASE NO.87 OF 2018
(CNR No.MHCC02н016220н2018)
Santosh Shankar Ingle
}…APPLICANT/ACCUSED
Versus
State of Maharashtra
}
(Crime No.336/2015 of PS Dahisar) }…PROSECUTION.
нннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннн
Shri.Pasbola, Shri Karl Rustomkhan learned advocate for applicant/accused.

Shri.Chavan, learned SPP for the prosecution.

ннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннн
нннCORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI.P.P.RAJVAIDYA (C.R.NO.16)
2
BA No.766 of 2020 in Spl.C. Nos.104н15, 108н15, 29н16,
12н17, 16н17, 17н17, 31н18, 74н18, 84н18, 87н18, 88н18.

ORAL ORDER
(Delivered on 15/06/2020)
1.

By filing this application, applicant/accused No.7 Santosh
Shankar Ingle has claimed interim bail in Crime No.336/2015
registered at PS Dahisar for offences under Sections 406, 408, 409,
420,465,467, 468, 471, 384, 201, 120нB, 34 of IPC and for offences
under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
2.

Read the application & say filed by learned SPP. Heard
learned Shri.Karl Rustomkhan advocate for applicant/accused No.7 &
learned Shri.Chavan SPP for the prosecution. Perused the entire record.
3.

Learned advocate for applicant/accused No.7 argued that
applicant/accused No.7 is old aged about 65 years having serious
ailments like diabetes and in view of the guidelines issued by the High
Power Committee, applicant/accused No.7 is entitled for interim bail.
He submitted that even though Jail Authority has forwarded medical
report of applicant/accused No.7, it does not appear that test for
diabetes has been conducted recently. He submitted that as per the
instructions of WHO, diabetic patients are more prone to Corona Virus,
one of the inmate in Taloja Jail has recently succumbed to Covidн19 and
applicant/accused No.7 being diabetic patient, there is more risk of his
getting infected by the Corona Virus due to which, applicant/accused
No.7 may be enlarged on interim bail.
4.

As against this, learned SPP vehemently opposed the bail
application by submitting that applicant/accused No.7 has played active
role in assisting the main coнaccused Ramesh Kadam in siphoning of the
Government funds and in fact, applicant/accused is the mastermind
behind the whole illegal activities of misappropriating the Government
Funds. He submitted that Jail Authority is taking proper care of health
3
BA No.766 of 2020 in Spl.C. Nos.104н15, 108н15, 29н16,
12н17, 16н17, 17н17, 31н18, 74н18, 84н18, 87н18, 88н18.

of all the prisoners hence, considering the serious nature of offences,
applicant/accused No.7 is not entitled for interim bail.
5.

At the outset, it may be stated here that though learned
advocate for applicant/accused No.7 submitted that applicant/accused
No.7 is entitled for bail as per recommendations of High Power
Committee on account of his being aged more than 65 years, I could not
find any force in his said argument. It is not in dispute that High Power
Committee has issued certain guidelines for release of prisoners on
interim bail to prevent contagion spread of Covidн19 Virus in the
Prisons. Minutes of Meeting make it clear that those recommendations
are not applicable to the category of cases falling under Major Financial
Scams & certain other offences. In the matter in hands, applicant/
accused No.7 has been chargeнsheeted for commission of offence of
misappropriation of huge Government Funds. In view it, the fact that
applicant/accused No.7 is aged more than 65 years in itself is not
sufficient for holding him entitled for interim bail as per the
recommendations of High Power Committee.
6.

Matter is fixed for framing of charge. This court has passed
a detailed order about the material available against each of the
accused for framing charges. Charge could not be framed till date on
account of absence of all the accused persons initially and thereafter on
account of the Lockнdown declared by the Government. It is true that it
is not certain as to when the condition will become alright for starting
court functioning as earlier but said fact, to my mind, is not sufficient to
grant interim bail to applicant/accused No.7 as there are serious
allegations
of
misappropriation
of
huge
Government
funds.

Furthermore, there are allegations that applicant/accused No.7 & other
accused persons have destroyed the evidence for screening themselves
4
BA No.766 of 2020 in Spl.C. Nos.104н15, 108н15, 29н16,
12н17, 16н17, 17н17, 31н18, 74н18, 84н18, 87н18, 88н18.

from legal punishments. Medical papers received from Jail though
suggest that applicant/accused No.7 is facing certain health problems, it
is clear from these medical papers that Jail Authority is providing
necessary medical aid to applicant/accused No.7 as and when required.
Having regards to those aspects and serious nature of offences so also,
having regards to the fact that necessary medical aid is being provided
to applicant/accused No.7 by the Jail Authority as and when required,
this court is of the opinion that the grounds raised in the application
and submitted at the bar during argument by learned advocate for
applicant/accused No.7 are not sufficient for granting interim bail to
applicant/accused No.7. Thus, an order.
ORDER
Bail Application No.766 of 2020 stands rejected.
Date : 15/06/2020.
Dictated on
Checked on
Signed on
: 15/06/2020.
: 15/06/2020.
: 15/06/2020.

(P.P.RAJVAIDYA)
Addl. Sessions Judge,
C.R.No.16, City Sessions Court,
Mumbai.

Note : Correction in the name of advocate on page No.1 so also, the
addition of word ”not” after word could in line No.4 of para no.5 of the
order are made as per order dtd.23/06/2020 passed in the roznama.
Judge.

5
BA No.766 of 2020 in Spl.C. Nos.104н15, 108н15, 29н16,
12н17, 16н17, 17н17, 31н18, 74н18, 84н18, 87н18, 88н18.

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDERФ.
16/06/2020 at 3.10 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs.Rupali S. Bhor
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with C.R.No.) HHJ SHRI.P.P.RAJVAIDYA
(C.R.No.16)
Date of pronouncement of Order
15/06/2020
Order signed by P.O. on
16/06/2020
Order uploaded on
16/06/2020