1
Cri BA No.1087-2024
MHCC020067492024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1087 OF 2024
Mohan Raghunath Dhadwe,
Age: 45 Years.

]
] …Applicant.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Dadar Police Station Vide FIR ]
No.439 of 2024)
] …Respondent.
Advocate Abhishek Kamble for applicant /accused.
APP Pankaj Chavan for the State.
CORAM :
SHRI. S.B. PAWAR,
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)
DATE
:
03rd MAY, 2024.
ORDER
Applicant who is arrested in connection with FIR No.439 of
2024 registered with Dadar Police Station for offence punishable under
sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the present
application for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
2.

FIR is registered on the basis of complaint lodged by first
informant Minal Santosh Neman. It is contended therein that in the
year 2019, the first informant was in need of money therefore she
availed loan of Rs.80,000/- from the applicant by pledging her gold
2
Cri BA No.1087-2024
ornaments weighing 48.370 grams with him.

The interest and the
principal amount was repaid to the applicant.

However, thereafter
applicant avoided to hand over the gold ornaments. After insistence by
the first informant and her brother, applicant told that he had pledged
the gold ornaments with one Prakash Sharma. The first informant
approached Prakash Sharma who directed her to another person
Prashant Jain, who informed that Prakash Sharma had pledged the gold
ornaments with him and thereafter, he had taken back the said
ornaments. When first informant decided to approach police, Prakash
Sharma became ready to hand over another gold ornaments to the first
informants. He demanded Rs.2,38,700/- for the said ornaments.
Applicant gave Rs.80,000/- to Prakash Sharma and accordingly, Prakash
Sharma made certain ornaments weighing 54.370 grams.
demanded additional amount of Rs.2,31,240/-.

He
The applicant had
issued cheque dated 02.07.2022 for payment of the said amount to
Prakash Sharma but it was dishonoured and thereafter, he avoided to
contact with the first informant. The first informant transferred amount
of Rs.80,000/- and pledged old gold ornaments weighing 38.700 grams
to Prakash Sharma for getting the new ornaments weighing 43.350
grams.

Thereafter, Prakash Sharma demanded the amount of
Rs.1,51,240/- for the balance gold ornaments weighing 11.020 grams
and for releasing the old gold ornaments pledged by the first informant.
Thus, it is alleged that the first informant is defrauded to the extent of
Rs.5,00,000/- by the applicant and Prakash Sharma in connivance and
has misappropriated the gold ornaments of the first informant.
3.

The applicant seeks bail on the grounds that he is falsely
implicated. The investigation is almost over. Nothing is recovered from
the first informant. He has no criminal antecedents. The trial may take
3
Cri BA No.1087-2024
considerable time to conclude. Prosecution opposed the bail on the
grounds that the property involved in the fraud is still not recovered.
There is possibility that applicant may pressurize the first informant and
witness and may abscond if he is released on bail.
4.

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP.

Advocate for the applicant argued that though it is mentioned in the FIR
that gold ornaments were handed over to Prakash Sharma, investigating
agency has not arrested Prakash Sharma. The applicant is in jail for
almost one month. No recovery is effected from the applicant during
his interrogation. Offence under sections 406 and 420 of IPC can not be
simultaneously invoked.
purpose of recovery.

The applicant can not be detained for the
He had no intention to cheat.

He has no
antecedents. Therefore, he urged to admit the applicant to bail. On the
other hand, learned APP argued that gold worth Rs.5,00,000/- is
involved in the offence and the applicant has not co-operated in the
investigation. There is possibility that a racket is involved. Property is
still not recovered and investigation is going on.

Therefore, at this
stage, applicant can not be admitted to bail.
5.

I have carefully considered rival submissions of both the
sides. From the FIR, it transpires that the first informant had direct
contact with the applicant and her initial transaction for obtaining loan
against her gold ornaments was with the applicant. Though it appears
that the transaction had taken place in the year 2019, the first
informant repaid the entire agreed amount to the applicant but
applicant failed to return the gold ornaments to the first informant. It
appears that certain further transactions in respect of her gold
ornaments took place behind and back of the first informant. The first
4
Cri BA No.1087-2024
informant was directed to one Prakash Sharma who in turn directed the
first informant to third person Prashant Jain for getting back her gold
ornaments.
6.

So far as transaction between the applicant and Prakash
Sharma is concerned, the first informant had no role to play in the said
transaction. However, she was made to pay certain amount to Prakash
Sharma as well, for gold ornaments in lieu of her original ornaments.
Furthermore, the cheque issued by the applicant for repayment of the
amount to Prakash Sharma is dishonoured. Therefore, prima facie, the
applicant is involved in the alleged offence.
7.

The grievance raised on behalf of applicant is that Prakash
Sharma was custodian of the gold of the first informant but he is not
arrested by police. As already observed, the transaction between the
applicant and Prakash Sharma was altogether different in which the
first informant had no role to play. Therefore, on the ground that
Prakash Sharma is not arrested, applicant can not receive any benefit so
far as the allegations against him are concerned. Non recovery from the
applicant during his interrogation indicates that he has not co-operated.
The investigation is still not complete as charge-sheet is yet to be filed.
In these circumstances, in my view, at this stage, the applicant can not
be admitted to bail as there is possibility that he may tamper with the
evidence. Thus, following order is passed:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.1087 of 2024 filed by the applicant
Mohan Raghunath Dhadwe in connection with FIR No.439 of 2024
registered with Dadar Police Station for offence under sections 406, 420
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected.

5
2.

Cri BA No.1087-2024
Criminal Bail Application No.1087 of 2024 is disposed off
accordingly.

SACHIN
BALVANT
PAWAR
Date : 03/05/2024
Order Dictated on: 03/05/2024
Transcribed on : 04/05/2024
Checked on
: 08/05/2024
Signed on
: 08/05/2024
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
BALVANT
PAWAR
Date: 2024.05.09
11:56:51 +0530
(S.B. PAWAR)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
09.05.2024
Upload Time
11.55 a.m.

Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court SHRI. S.B. PAWAR (CR 58)
Room No.)
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of 03.05.2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 08.05.2024
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 09.05.2024
on