Bail Application No.939/2024.
MHCC020058862024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 939 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 538 OF 2023.
Parul Nilesh Shrivastava
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.538/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Omkar Chitale for the Applicant/accused.
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 : 18TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Parul Nilesh Shrivastava
being accused in C.R.No.538/2023 registered with Matunga Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 341, 347,
Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.939/2024.
323 and 504 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”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, as on 17.12.2023 at
about 00.15 hours the informant brought casting gold and gold filing
dust bag from Kolkatta, West Bengal by train. While the informant
were taking over the muddemal article by taxi at Dadar, and were
passing through Lower Parel, at the road opposite to Rami Hotel. 6
individuals stopped their taxi and forcibly took away red colour bag
containing 35 Kg of casting gold and gold filing dust containing 650
grams of gold thereby amounting to Rs.27 lakhs approximately. The
said articles were stolen by the accused persons.

The sleuth of
respondent agency accordingly upon their inputs had intercepted the
accused persons and had put them under arrest.
3.

It is stated that, upon a secret information received by the
sleuth of respondent agency it revealed that, the accused namely
Nilesh Shrivastav being the main accused had proposed to travel out
of the state alongwith his family.

A trap was laid and while the
accused alongwith his family were traveling by rickshaw, they were
intercepted and it is the present applicant/accused, who had helped
the accused No.1 i.e. her husband to flee from the spot. Thereafter,
she was put under arrest after obtaining an appropriate permission
from the Ld. Magistrate. Furthermore, search was conducted and
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.939/2024.
accordingly muddemal was seized. Thus, the offence was registered
under sections ibid.
4.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is not at all concerned in the present crime and is
merely arrested on the basis of suspicion.

It is stated that, the
applicant/accused is not seen in the CCTV footage and the she is
incognizant to the incident. CDR location also do not specify for the
presence of the applicant/accused at the spot. Applicant/accused was
arrested in the absence of any lady police officer. It is further stated
that the police have planted the alleged recovered muddemal and
that, the applicant/accused never participated in the alleged dacoity.
It is stated that, as the police failed to arrest the husband of the
applicant/accused, she was put under arrest. Lastly the Ld. advocate
for applicant/accused submits that charge-sheet has been filed and
thus further incarceration is not required. Therefore, in view of the
same, Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlarging the
applicant/accused on bail.
5.

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 has played a
significant role for the escape of main accused i.e. her husband.
Further, upon search of residence the muddemal as alleged was duly
recovered and seized and remnant muddemal is yet to be recovered
and if the applicant/accused is enlarged on bail, she might dispose of
the same. It is also stated that the husband of the applicant/accused
is the main accused and is absconding and if the applicant/accused is
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.939/2024.
enlarged on bail she might aid him for fleeing. Prosecution further
apprehends for abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening
to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
6.

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

7.

It palpably evinces to myself that, as observed on the
earlier occasion, the applicant/accused is assigned with the role of
ventilating the escape of the prime accused i.e. her husband.
Undoubtedly, the quantum of seized muddemal upon the search of
residence prima-facie fortifies the theory of prosecution. Prosecution
also has brought on record the CDR, wherein the applicant/accused
apart from her husband is well acquainted and connected with the
other co-accused. Prosecution has admittedly stated for the filing of
charge-sheet and in this regard their reply categorically states for the
prime accused to be the husband of the applicant/accused. Moreover,
post investigation it has revealed that the applicant/accused has
ventilated for the escape of her husband and has disposed of certain
muddemal. It is pertinent that none of the section invoked against the
applicant/accused in prima-facie attract for the role as attributed to
the applicant/accused.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant as observed on the earlier occasion, the
factum of recovery is not denied, but is assigned with a reason of
planting, which of course is an aspect to be dealt during the regular
Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.939/2024.
course of trial.
been
filed.

Investigation has concluded and charge-sheet has
Even
as
per
prosecution
the
husband
of
the
applicant/accused is a main culprit. Recovery of muddemal from the
applicant/accused is effected and as stated supra considering the role
assigned to the applicant/accused her participation in the alleged
crime lies under speculation in prima-facie. Undoubtedly prosecution
will have all such opportunity to lead such evidence during the
regular course of trial but at this juncture, in my considerate view,
further incarceration is not required.

In the backdrop of aforesaid
facts, I hold that, the application deserves consideration.
order infra :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.939/2024 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Parul Nilesh Shrivastava
being accused in C.R.No.538/2023 registered with
Matunga Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 395, 341, 347, 323 and 504 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 her 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
Hence,
Bail Application No.939/2024.
5. The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
6. The applicant/accused shall attend the Matunga
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 her passport
if any with the investigating officer. If the applicant
doesn’t have passport, she 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.939/2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 18.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.19
11:31:35 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 18.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 18.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 19.04.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.939/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
19.04.2024
11.31 a.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
18.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
19.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
19.04.2024
uploaded
Page 7 of 7