MHCC020055362024
1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. BOMBAY
Criminal Bail Application No.861 of 2024
Gaysuddin Khan
Age :- 30 Years, Occ: Labour
R/at :- 68B Ghosipur, Ward No.60,
Gorakhpur, Dist. Uttar Pradesh.

..Applicant/accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Cuff Parade
Police Station, Mumbai.
(C.R.No.251 of 2023)
…Respondent/State
Coram : DR. Shri S. D. Tawshikar
(Court No. 10)
Heard on
: 10.04.2024
Decided on : 18.04.2024
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Vikas Rathi for applicant/accused.
Addl. P.P. Mr. Ajit Chavan for State.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
This is the first bail application, under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” in short), after filing of the chargesheet in
connection with C.R. No. 251 of 2023, registered with Cuff Parade Police
Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 384, 465, 466,
468, 471, 419, 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” in
short) and Sections 66 (c) and 66 (d) of the Information and Technology Act,
2
Cri.B.A.861-2024
2000 (“IT Act” in short). Earlier bail application filed by the applicant, before
filing of chargesheet, was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to
approach trial Court after filing of chargesheet. Thereafter, application filed
by present applicant before learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.),
Esplanade, after filing of chargesheet, came to be rejected. Hence, the present
application.
2.

Perused application and reply (Exhibit-2) filed by the State.

3.

Heard both sides extensively.

4.

The informant is a 71 years old lady. Her husband is retired
before quite long time. It has been alleged that informant received few phone
calls from anonymous numbers. She was told that amount deposited by her
husband in his Provident Fund (PF), long back, is now swelled to Rs.11
Crores. So as to get said amount, informant and her husband were was asked
to deposit certain amounts for government clearances and taxes. It appears
that informant and her husband were lured by the accused by calling them
repeatedly posing themselves to be officers from PF department. Under the
garb of various taxes and fees for disbursement of the Rs. 11 crore, accused
fraudulently got huge amount of Rs.4,35,50,277/- (Four cores thirty five
lakhs fifty thousand two hundred and seventy seven) from the informant and
her husband. No amount was eventually paid by said persons as was
promised. When, informant came to know about cheating, instant FIR came
to be lodged.
5.

It has been alleged by the prosecution that present
applicant is one of the main accused. His participation is revealed
during interrogation with some of the co-accused. It is alleged that
present applicant is an Engineer ( no specific document to that effect is
3
Cri.B.A.861-2024
filed) having technical knowledge with respect to siphoning off money
by transferring the same from one bank account to another bank
account. It is alleged that present applicant had booked a room in a
hotel at Delhi. From the said room he used to operate the racket of
online frauds and deception with help of other 4-5 persons. It is alleged
that many debit cards, mobile phones and a laptop came to be seized
from said room.
6.

It is alleged that the present applicant was continuously in
touch with the main accused namely Ghanashyam, who is still
absconding. During the course of interrogation, applicant has showed
an under construction building of Ghanashyam, which was being
built-up from the proceeds of the present offence.
7.

Mr. Vikas Rathi, the learned advocate for the applicant,
submits that this Court had declined bail to the present applicant on
earlier occasion owing to non-completion of investigation. Now
investigation is completed and chargesheet is already filed. He submits
that accused is behind bars since last about three months. Offences are
triable by Magistrate. Further detention of applicant behind the bars is
in unwarranted. Mr. Rathi further points out bail orders of co-accused.
He submits that the applicant has co-operated in investigation and
therefore he deserves bail on merit as well as on parity.
8.

Per contra Mr. Ajit Chavan, learned Additional Public
prosecutor, strongly objects bail application. He submits that though the
chargesheet is filed against present applicant, still investigation is not
complete. Many co-accused including main accused Ghanashyam is yet
to be arrested. He is not being traced out. Ghanashyam was closely
4
Cri.B.A.861-2024
associated and in touch with present applicant. If present applicant is
released on bail that may hamper further investigation and create
difficulty in securing presence of the main accused. Mr. Chavan further
submits that there are three criminal antecedents reported against the
present applicant. If he is released on bail, he may again indulge in
similar offences.
9.

The investigating officer, who is present before the Court,
submits that when the present applicant was in jail, in connection with
other offence, at Dasna (Uttar Pradesh), he came in contact with
Ghanashyam and other accused, who were also detained for similar
offences of fraudster and cheating. I.O. further submits that present
applicant, Ghanashyam and others decided to assist each other and
accordingly they executed the plan as soon as they came out of the jail.
They have duped many innocent persons by making fraudulent calls.
10.

Investigating Officer has produced papers of investigation
which also includes chargesheet. From the statement of the owner of
the hotel, it appears that the present applicant had booked a room in his
name and he stayed there for considerable period. From Zadti
Panchanama (Search Panchanama) dated 22.11.2023. It appears that
43 debit Cards of different banks, 05 mobile handsets with SIM cards of
different companies and one laptop came to be seized from said room.
It apparently shows indulgence of present applicant along-with other
co-accused on large scale online frauds.
11.

The chargesheet contains the photographs of present
applicant with co-accused Rahmathulla. Police have also collected
certain WhatsApp chats of co-accused with present applicant, which
5
Cri.B.A.861-2024
confirms indulgence of present applicant in online/Cyber/telephonic
frauds and siphoning off monies of the present informant.
12.

Thus,
the
chargesheet
clearly
depicts
the
active
involvement of the present applicant in duping the innocent persons
like informant herein. Though the chargesheet seems to have filed
against present applicant, still it appears that investigation is yet not
completed. The main accused namely Ghanashyam is still absconding.
Applicant seems to have similar criminal antecedents and therefore the
possibility of his indulgence in similar offences in future cannot be ruled
out. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the informant and her
husband being senior citizens were duped for a sum of more than Four
Crores. There is hardly recovery of Rs.77,58,506/- and some odd
amount from one accused only. Thus, major part of amount of offence is
yet to be traced-out and recovered.
13.

Now-a-days the online/cyber fraud and cheating by way of
fishing calls are at rise. Such offences are posing serious challenge to
the money/property of common man even if kept in Banks. This Court
has noticed gradual increase in such offences. The well educated
persons like applicant are seen to have indulged in the cyber frauds for
easy money. This court feels that the accused are sure that they will be
released on bail within 2-3 months and thereafter again they can easily
indulge in similar offences. There are reasons to believe that present
applicant being an habitual offender may again indulge in similar
offences, if released on bail. Hence, though the offence is triable by
Magistrate and though the chargesheet is filed, still there are serious
grounds to refuse bail.

6
14.

Cri.B.A.861-2024
I must add that some co-accused are released on regular
bail by this Court, however their actual role and other back ground
circumstances were clearly different. The present applicant is next to
the main accused Ghanashyam. Main accused is yet not traced out.
Thus, investigation is fully not complete. Hence, I do not find it proper
to release him on bail even at this stage. It goes without saying that
applicant may press for bail after some time, if investigation progresses
or if there is change in circumstances.
15.

Mr. Vikas Rathi, during the course of argument, points out
that the order passed by the learned M.M. rejecting bail application is
not a speaking order. There are literally no reasons at all in the order.
Mr. Rathi submits that the learned Magistrate has not even considered
facts of the case or grounds raised in the application. The order is
passed very casually. Ld. Addl PP too shows surprise on such short
order. Ld. advocate invited attention of this court to the said order. I am
surprised to see that the order is so short and without single reason. The
order is as follows-, “considering the say of APP application is rejected ”.
I am told that this is the only order. The order is handwritten on the
application itself.
16.

It needs to be noted that Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of
judgment has observed that a judicial order must be reasoned one. The
order must reflect application of judicial mind. No matter whether a
judge grant or refuses any relief, however, the order must reflect the
reasons behind the order. A judicial order may be brief/short, but must
necessarily contain some reasons to reflect his/her thinking process.
17.

While dealing with a case of not having reasoned order,
7
Cri.B.A.861-2024
Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of ‘Y ’ V/s State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9
SCC 269 (In Para No.20) has observed that, ‘ reasoning is the lifeblood
of the judicial system. That every order must be ‘reasoned’ is one of the
fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice
of arbitrariness.’
18.

Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized on the need of
passing reasoned judicial orders. Apex Court has deprecated the
practice of passing order devoid of reasons. It would be gainful to
reproduce Paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of aforesaid authority, here –
“23. From the above, it is clear that this Court has
consistently upheld the necessity of reasoned bail orders,
with a special emphasis on matters involving serious
offences. In the present case, Respondent 2-accused has
been accused of committing the grievous offence of rape
against his young niece of nineteen years. The fact that
Respondent 2-accused is a habitual offender and nearly
twenty cases registered against him has not even found
mentioned in the impugned order. Further the High Court
has failed to consider the influence that Respondent 2accused may have over the prosecutrix as an elder family
member. The period of imprisonment, being only three
months, is not of such a magnitude as to push the Court
towards granting bail in an offence of this nature.
24. The impugned order passed by the High Court is
cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind.
There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or
refusing to grant bail, where the courts make a general
observation that “the facts and the circumstances” have
been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which
precipitated the passing of the order by the Court.”
19.

Admittedly, the learned M.M. failed to furnish any reason
while rejecting the bail application. It is needless to say that being
burdened with work load, if any, cannot be an excuse to pass such
order. There ought to have been some reasons for rejecting the
8
Cri.B.A.861-2024
application. The order sans characteristics of a judicial order. Such
orders may erode the confidence of common man on judicial system. So
as to avoid such instances in future, I find it expedient to request the
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Mumbai to appraise the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate about the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court referred supra. He shall further request the said learned Judicial
Officer, henceforth, to follow the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court.

In view of the discussion above, I am not inclined to allow the
20.

application. Hence, I pass following orderORDER
A)
The Criminal Bail Application No. 861 of 2024 stands
rejected.

B)
In view of the observations in Paragraph No.19 herein above,
copy of the order be forwarded to learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai. He is requested to appraise
the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate with the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Y ’ /s State of
Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269 .
C)
It is made clear that observation of this Court are limited to
this application and shall not affect/influence further trial.

D)
The Criminal Bail Application No.861 of 2024 is disposed of
accordingly.

Date : 18-04-2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Corrected on
Signed on
: 18-04-2024
: 18-04-2024
: 18-04-2024 (AOH)
: 19-04-2024
SWAPNIL
DINKARRAO
TAWSHIKAR
Digitally signed
by SWAPNIL
DINKARRAO
TAWSHIKAR
Date: 2024.04.19
16:17:52 +0530
(Dr. S. D. Tawshikar)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
C.R.No.10
9
Cri.B.A.861-2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
19.04.2024 04:17p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Mr. Gopal N. Sutar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Date of
ORDER
Pronouncement
Dr. S.D. Tawshikar
C.R. No.10
of
JUDGMENT/ 18.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on
19.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
19.04.2024