Bail Application No.1068/2024.
MHCC020066322024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1068 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 538 OF 2023.

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

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Amrish Salunke 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 : 30TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant/accused Anuj Shyamlal
Sharma being accused in C.R.No.538/2023 registered with Matunga
Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.1068/2024.
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 341,
347, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as,
“IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
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
accordingly muddemal was seized. Thus, the offence was registered
under sections ibid.
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.1068/2024.
4.

Ld. advocate for the applicant/accused state that the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated and himself is a victim of
circumstances. Considering the role being attributed to the
applicant/accused the ingredients of the sections invoked do not
match. There is delay
in recording FIR. Furthermore,
the
applicant/accused in not located in the CCTV footage. Test
identification parade was conducted 54 days later by the SEO post
arrest and one of the witness failed to identify the applicant/accused.
Nothing is recovered at the instance of the applicant/accused.
Charge-sheet has been filed in the present crime and co-accused is
enlarged on bail, hence applicant/accused claims parity. Hence Ld.
advocate
for
applicant/accused
prayed
for
enlarging
the
applicant/accused on bail.
5.

Per contra the prosecution 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
actively
participated in the present crime. Further the muddemal is yet to be
recovered. Furthermore, the accused person have acted in connivance
and have conspired to execute the present crime. Prosecution further
apprehends abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening to
prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection
of application.
6.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused and Ld.
Prosecutor for the State. Perused application and reply along with the
documents filed and relied by the parties.
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.1068/2024.

7.

The gravamen of indictment against the applicant/accused
that he has played a crucial role to gather the co-accused for the
commission of the alleged crime. On perusal of the charge-sheet and
reply and considering the accusations it palpably evinces to myself
that, the main culprit is stated to be the accused No. 1 namely Nilesh
Srivastav. The role of the applicant/accused has been revealed by the
co-accused as a participant in the crime. Apart from the same nothing
is stated. Also that one of the witness has failed to identify the
applicant/accused. Merely because co-accused are absconding wont
be the reason for further incarceration of the accused.

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.

9.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused no specific role has been assigned to
the applicant/accused and even the reply does not specify the same.
Investigation has concluded and charge-sheet has been filed. Even as
per prosecution the co-accused Nilesh Srivastav is a main culprit.
Even recovery of muddemal from the applicant/accused is stated at
the behest of the applicant/accused and as stated supra considering
the role assigned to the applicant/accused his participation in the
alleged crime lies under speculation in prima-facie. Undoubtedly
prosecution will have all such opportunity to lead such evidence
Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.1068/2024.
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. Hence, order infra: –
ORDER
1. Bail Application No.1068/2024 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Anuj Shyamlal Sharma being
accused in C.R.No.538/2023 registered with
Matunga Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 395, 341, 347, 323, 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 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.
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 his passport
if any with the investigating officer. If the applicant
doesn’t have passport, he will furnish an affidavit to
that effect.

Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.1068/2024.

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
disposed of accordingly.

No.1068/2024
Dr. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 30.04.2024.

stands
Digitally signed by Dr.
ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.05.04
12:12:56 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 30.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 02.05.2024.
HHJ signed on : 04.05.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.1068/2024.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
04.05.2024
12.12 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
30.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
04.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
04.05.2024
Page 7 of 7