Bail Application No.839/2024.
MHCC020053592024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 839 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 310 OF 2023.
Bhaurao Uttam Ingle
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Sion Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.310/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Vijay Ram Sahetia for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 05TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Bhaurao Uttam Ingle being
accused in C.R.No.310/2023 registered with Sion Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 452,
Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.839/2024.
170, 342 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to
as, “IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”). This is application post filing of
charge-sheet.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, as on 26.11.2023
offense was registered against 5 unknown persons under Section ibid.
As on 26.11.2023 at about 11.40 am accused persons came to the
house of the informant and had shown his ID Card pretending as an
Income Tax Officer. The accused persons thereafter entered into the
house and closed the doors and took mobile phone of all the family
members and thereby asked them for the keys of the cupboard and
thereafter, took Rs.18 lakhs kept in the cupboard and fled from the
spot in an Innova Car.

Thus, the offence was registered under
Sections ibid.
3.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated. It is further stated that, there
is no any recovery at the instance of the applicant/accused.
Applicant/accused has till date co-operated with the investigation.
Investigation has substantially concluded. It is stated that, chargesheet has been filed in the matter and there are severe discrepancies
in the case of prosecution. It is pertinent that, the panchnama of
personal search conducted as on 05.12.2023 spells out its
commencement by 23.30 hours and conclusion by 00.35 hours and
exactly contrary to the same, the applicant/accused is shown to be
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.839/2024.
arrested prior to the same, and was produced before Ld. M. M.
claiming his remand and propelling such articles seized from him.
Apart from the same, there is also discrepancy in the CCTV Footage
timings and that of the alleged occurrence of incident. Further, there
are no antecedents to the discredit of the applicant/accused and
therefore, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused state that, no
further incarceration is required. Hence, the applicant/accused be
enlarged 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 had received his
share from the alleged sum of Rs.18 lakhs which is to the tune of
Rs.2.5 lakhs, which as per the disclosure statement of the
applicant/accused was kept at his home, but was not recovered under
memorandum. Furthermore, the investigating officer present states
that, the timings of CCTV are as per the screen timings, but they
propel for the actual incident timings.

Prosecution
further
apprehends for abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening
to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
5.

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

6.

On copious perusal of the application/reply and the
appended documents it palpably evinces to myself that, the
applicant/accused himself has made a disclosure statement and has
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.839/2024.
stated that the applicant/accused has received such sum to his share
to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. As agitated by the Ld. advocate for
applicant/accused it is pertinent that the factum of delayed FIR will
have no bearing at this juncture.
7.

Further, the factum of CCTV Footage also requires
ascertainment during the course of regular trial, with regard to the
discrepancy in the timings. But it is crucial that, the alleged incident
is stated as on 05.12.2023, and that the accused is put under arrest
on the same day and produced before the Ld. Magistrate. Further,
considering the fact that, the personal search panchnama was
conducted by 20.30 hours which concluded at 00.35 hours, and
certain recovery is effected which is already reflected in the remand
application.

This naturally lays the case of prosecution under
speculation.

This Court has raised a specific query with the
investigating officer present before the Court with regard to such
discrepancy with regard to effecting recovery under personal search
and mentioning of the same in the remand application, upon which
he states it as a typographical error. This Court further raised query
that, whether any other record propels for such conducting of
personal search on the intervening night of 05.12.2023, upon which
there is no such congruent record.
8.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.839/2024.
9.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused it is pertinent that, the said
discrepancy will naturally lay the case of prosecution under
speculation.

Therefore, at this juncture it naturally ventilates for
such relief as redressed by the applicant/accused. Therefore, in my
considerate view, I hold that, the apprehension of prosecution can be
taken
care
of
by
saddling
stringent
conditions
on
the
applicant/accused including marking of his presence with the
respondent agency. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that,
the application deserves consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.839/2024 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Bhaurao Uttam Ingle being
accused in C.R.No.310/2023 registered with Sion.
Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 452, 170, 342
and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, be released on
furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
3. The applicant/accused and his sureties shall
provide their respective residential addresses,
mobile numbers and email addresses, if any. The
applicant/accused shall intimate any such change in
address or telephone number and Email ID
forthwith.
4. The applicant/accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the
present case to dissuade them from disclosing such
facts to the Court.
Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.839/2024.
5. The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
6. The applicant/accused shall attend the Sion Police
Station on every Tuesday and Friday between 11.00
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. until further order.
7. The applicant/accused shall surrender his passport
if any with the investigating officer. If the applicant
doesn’t have passport, he will furnish an affidavit to
that effect.
8. The applicant/accused shall not leave India without
permission of this Court.
9. Any breach of the conditions in this bail order shall
entail cancellation of bail forthwith.
10.Bail Application No.839/2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 05.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.05
17:19:13 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 05.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 05.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 05.04.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.839/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
05.04.2024
05.18 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
05.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
05.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
05.04.2024
uploaded
Page 7 of 7