Bail Application No.925/2024.
MHCC020058172024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 925 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 138 OF 2024.

Jayesh Nanji Maru
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.138/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Tiwari 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 : 10TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Jayesh Nanji Maru being
accused in C.R.No.138/2024 registered with Matunga Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal
Page 1 of 5
Bail Application No.925/2024.
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 20.03.2024, at
about 11.30 hours while the informant left from her home for the
purposes of dental treatment, to reach Sujata Shetty Dental Clinic
near Nappu Garden, and while she proceeded through Ruia Junction,
suddenly somebody came from behind and pulled her mangalsutra.
During such incident, the assailant succeeded in pulling and taking of
a certain portion of Mangalsutra. Further the informant screamed for
help and in the meantime a police vehicle was passing by and the
said fact was apprised to the police. Police escorted the informant to
the police station in order to register the offence and in the meantime
one of the taxi driver brought an individual stating that the said
individual post committing theft was running and that the said taxi
driver intercepted him and brought to the police station. Informant
immediately identified the said individual as the same person who
snatched her mangalsutra. Thus, offence was lodged under the
section ibid.

3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated, investigation has concluded,
recovery is already effected and charge-sheet has been filed in the
matter. Further, the applicant/accused is suffering from depression
and is under treatment. It is also stated that there is no assault
alleged and therefore the ingredients of the section invoked do not
Page 2 of 5
Bail Application No.925/2024.
match. Thus the Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused states that
further incarceration is not necessitated. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant 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 has snatched the
mangalsutra of the informant, who is an age old lady and on account
of the same, she fell down and was sustained with injuries. Further,
the
investigation
is
under
progress.

Ld.

Prosecutor
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.

The gravamen of the indictment of the applicant/accused
spells out for an act of snatched mangalsutra committed by the
applicant/accused. It is pertinent that the informant being an age old
lady was sustained with injuries on her neck and also that due such
sudden
act
of
snatching
she
fell
down.

Moreover
the
applicant/accused has not denied for his presence at the spot. Ld.
prosecutor categorically states that the applicant/accused is well
located at the spot. Thus, the applicant/accused also has failed to
explain for the reason of his presence at the spot. Moreover the
informant has identified the applicant/accused to have snatched her
Page 3 of 5
Bail Application No.925/2024.
mangalsutra. This ipso-facto dis-entitles the applicant/accused for
any such relief of enlargement on bail.
7.

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.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant it is palpably clear that, the applicant/accused
well identified at the spot of incident.
participation of
Therefore, the active
the applicant/accused is apparently
located.

Therefore, there is every possibility that, the applicant/accused might
tamper the prosecution evidence. Also that the investigation is at a
nascent stage and granting of such relief will naturally derail the
momentum of investigation. Therefore, I do not find this as a fit case
for grant of bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the
application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.925/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 10.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.12
11:51:36 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 10.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 10.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 12.04.2024.
Page 4 of 5
Bail Application No.925/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
12.04.2024
11.51 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
10.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
12.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
12.04.2024
uploaded
Page 5 of 5