Bail Application No.621/2024.
MHCC020041292024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 621 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 421 OF 2023.
Ali Raza Abdul Karim Shaikh
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.421/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Naqeeb Gadhwala for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ravleen Sabharwal for the Intervener.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 15TH MARCH, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Ali Raza Abdul Karim
Shaikh being accused in C.R.No.421/2023 registered with Matunga
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.621/2024.
468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter
referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “Cr.P.C.”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, since 27.09.2021 until
14.02.2022 accused namely Ali Raza Shaikh, Jay @ Raju Manglani,
Valmik Goler, Vijay Nadar and Vikrant D. Sonawane in connivance
with each other conspired and obtained the faith of the informant
and appraised of the fact that, his liquor license would be transferred
and he would also be sustained with benefits from the APMC Market,
Navi Mumbai. Apart from the same, it was also appraised to the
informant that he would be exonerated from the offence registered
against him. Under this appraisal the applicant alongwith the coaccused received Rs.1,95,68,000/- from the informant and when the
informant asked them for the said amount he was threatened upon
gunpoint. It is pertinent that applicant/accused was shown as Vikrant
S. Sonawane, in whose name the liquor license was registered. It is
alleged that the applicant/accused had forged the PAN card which
was shown to the informant in order to gain his faith. Accordingly,
the offence was registered under Sections ibid. Further, accused Ali
Raza Shaikh i.e. applicant/accused was put under arrest in the
present crime.

3.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated in the present crime. It is
categorically stated that, the applicant/accused is arrested as on
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.621/2024.
06.10.2023 and till date nothing is stated to be recovered at the
instance of the applicant/accused. It is stated that, the trial in the
matter will take substantial time and therefore, the applicant/accused
is required to be released on bail. It is stated that, the informant has
also initiated proceedings under Section 138 of N. I. Act and that, the
applicant/accused had handed over some cheque to the informant
which were misused by the informant. Further, the statements of the
informant itself speak in quantum and therefore, as the co-accused
are enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble High Court the applicant/accused
claims parity. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed
for enlarging the applicant on bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the applicant/accused is the prime
accused and is a recipient of amount to the tune of Rs.72,68,000/-.
The said amount was availed by the applicant/accused from the
informant. Further, it also revealed that, the applicant/accused has
transferred an amount of Rs.13.85 lakhs in some other account.
Also, that the applicant/accused has a criminal antecedents to his
discredit.

Hence,
there
is
every
possibility
that,
the
applicant/accused might tamper with the evidence. Ld. Prosecutor
apprehends for abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening
to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
5.

Ld. Advocate for intervener has filed his intervention
application vide Exh.4 and has categorically states that, mere filing of
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.621/2024.
charge-sheet is no change in circumstance and the said position is
well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further stated for the
factum of transaction and argued in congruence with that of the Ld.
Prosecutor.
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant, Ld. Advocate for
intervenor and Ld. APP for the State. Perused the application and
reply.

7.

Upon
meticulous
examination
of
case
record,
bail
application and the appended documents it is palpably clear that, the
applicant/accused has claimed for the factum of parity as the coaccused Aarif Patel and Raju Manglani have been enlarged by the
Hon’ble High Court. I have perused the order of the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court dated 21.02.2024. It is palpably observed by the Hon’ble
High Court that,
“8. It is pertinent to note that the first informant
alleged that initially cash amount of Rs.37,00,000/was handed over to accused Ali Raza Shaikh.
Subsequently a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was again
delivered to Ali Raza Shaikh. It does not appear
that the cash amount was either paid to the
applicant or he was present when the cash amount
was paid to the co-accused Ali Raza Shaikh. After
the alleged delivery of cash amount of
Rs.47,00,000/- also, it appears there were further
transactions between the first informant and the
applicant till the month of February, 2022. Certain
cheques were drawn by Ali Raza Shaikh, which
were dishonored on presentment.”
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.621/2024.

8.

Considering the said observations of the Hon’ble High
Court it is evident that, the role of the applicant/accused is well
identified and considering the quantum of amount as received by the
applicant/accused, the Ld. Prosecutor has rightly pointed out for such
considerations as held in the case of P. Chidambaram. Furthermore,
it is also evident that, the applicant/accused has not stated for any
such other supervening grounds so as to enlarge him on bail. On the
contrary there is every possibility that, the applicant/accused might
tamper with the prosecution evidence, more especially the amount
under the present crime is yet to be recovered. In the backdrop of
aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application deserves no consideration.
Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.621/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 15.03.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.03.16
14:53:45 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 15.03.2024.
Transcribed on : 15.03.2024.
HHJ signed on : 16.03.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.621/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
16.03.2024
02.53 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
15.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
16.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
16.03.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6