MHCC020028572024
1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. BOMBAY
Criminal Bail Application No.419 of 2024
Mukhtar Moinuddin Kondkar
Age :- 44 Years,
R/at :- Room No.1, 313/C, Kondkar
Chawl, Rambhau Bhogle Marg, near
Mafatlal Mil, Mazgaon, Mumbai.

..Applicant/accused No.1
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of MRA Marg Police
Station, Mumbai. (C.R.No.154 of 2023)
Nakhir Rashid Khan
R/o 5, Patel Building, Nal Bazaar,
25, Bora Street, 1st floor,
Mumbai 400003.

…Respondent/State
…Intervenor/Org.
Complainant.

Coram : DR. Shri S. D. Tawshikar
(Court No. 10)
Heard on
: 10.04.2024
Decided on : 10.04.2024
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Javed Ansari for applicant/accused.
Addl. P.P. Mr. Ajit Chavan for State.
Adv. Mr. Metanshu Purandare @ Adv. Ms. Sakshi Salunkhe for
intervenor/original complainant.
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
2
Cri.B.A.419-2024
connection with C.R.No.154 of 2023, registered with MRA Marg Police
Station for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 471 r/w
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” in short.
2.

Perused application and reply filed by the State. Heard both
sides at length, including learned advocate for the intervenor.
3.

One Nakhir Rashid Khan has lodged instant FIR with
allegations that, present applicant/accused No.1 along-with other co-accused
cheated him by inducing him to pay huge amount on the pretext of good
returns out of investment in transportation business. It is alleged that Smt.
Bitoo Khan (absconding) is the proprietor of a Firm namely “S.K.
Corporation” whereas one Mukesh Patel (now expired) was shown as owner
of another Firm namely “Micron Logi”. Believing words of accused, informant
from time to time invested some money with S.K. Corporation for
transportation of goods through containers. Initially on small investment,
some returns were shown to have been received by informant from Micron
Logi. After gaining confidence, accused/applicant induced informant to
invest more amount, accordingly he parted with huge amount. Though he
received some returned initially, however further payment were stopped from
the month of June-2023.
4.

Thereafter, informant made inquiry into the aspect of
transactions of S.K. Corporation and Micron Logi. To his surprise, he came to
know that both firms/companies are fraudster. No business of any sort, much
less of transportation, was ever conducted by these companies/firms and as
such they, with pre-plan, trapped the informant and thereby duped him for
sum of Rs.65,01,000/-. Hence, present FIR.
5.

Respondent
Police
completed
investigation
and
filed
chargesheet before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The chargesheet
boosts the allegations contained in FIR.
6.

3
Cri.B.A.419-2024
Mr. Ansari the learned advocate for applicant submits that FIR
itself shows that initially informant had received good returns from said
business. Informant had paid money to S.K. Corporation. However, it appears
that S.K. Corporation failed to send container to Micron Logi. Out of
Rs.1,79,40,000/- (one crore seventy nine lakhs forty thousand only), around
one Crore forty two lakhs are returned to informant by Micron Logi.
Rs.65,00,000/- (Sixty five lakhs) is outstanding amount. The payment of
these amount to the informant can be seen from bank statements. He
submits that owing to certain financial business problems S.K. Corporation
failed to send container, therefore Micron logi did not pay amount to
informant.
7.

The Ld. advocate submits that the transaction is admitted one.

Same is part and parcel of commercial transaction. There is no question of
cheating or forgery. He further submits that there is unexplained delay in
lodging FIR. Informant has not come with a clean hands. Investigation is
completed and entire material is collected and placed on record in the form
of chargesheet. He submits that applicant is behind bars since last more than
seven months. He has co-operated in investigation. Applicant is ready to
co-operate in further investigation. There is no point in keeping applicant
behind the bars. Hence, he may be released on bail.
8.

The Learned APP Mr. Ajit Chavan strongly objects the
application. He submits that there is strong case against applicant/accused
and therefore application deserves to be rejected. He further pointed out that
the co-accused namely Smt. Bitoo Khan is the director of S.K. Corporation,
happens to be wife of present applicant. Despite rejection of her ABA she is
absconding since long time. For this reason also bail needs to be refused.

9.

Mr.

Metanshu
4
Purandare
learned
Cri.B.A.419-2024
advocate
for
intervenor/original complainant has filed compilation of documents alongwith his intervention application. He took this Court through certain account
statements and other documents placed on record. He also submits that this
is not a simple case of commercial transactions. Accused with initial planing
has cheated informant by inducing him to invest amount by showing rosy
picture of handsome returns. He submits that neither S.K. Corporation nor
Micro Logi owns any business. They are mere paper companies. No container
or transport business is conducted by them. Applicant and other co-accused
have trapped informant and fraudulently induced him to part with the huge
amount. Initially, to gain confidence of the applicant, and as a part of their
planning, they paid certain amount as return. However, under the garb of
further investment they immediately used to take away that amount with
additional amount of the informant.

10.

Mr. Purandare submits that the applicant is facing one more
identical FIR lodged with APMC Police Station, New Mumbai bearing
C.R.No.123 of 2022. He further pointed out that invoices given by
accused/applicant were not of four-wheeler or container, but of two-wheeler
and some vehicle that shows fabrication on the part of accused.

11.

Mr. Purandare further submits that informant received threats
from one dreaded criminal namely Farukh Shaih, who is concerned/related
to applicant. He further submits that there is no proper investigation in the
matter at the hands of investigating machinery. The learned advocate for
intervenor pointed out the Exhibit-G annexed with the intervention
application and submits that despite request made to the senior Police
Inspector of M.R.A. Marg Police station, other co-accused are not inquired
with or arrested despite their clear involvement. He further points out that
5
Cri.B.A.419-2024
despite rejection of ABA, which was filed by Smt. Bitoo Khan, she is yet not
arrested or traced out by the Police. He ultimately prays to reject the bail
application.

12.

With the able assistance of both the learned advocates, I have
gone through FIR and chargesheet. No doubt offence alleged is triable by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, but it shows great planning and daring in
executing the alleged offence. True, that applicant is behind bars since last
about seven months, however, from the material placed on record it prima
facie appears that the present applicant along-with co-accused with pre plan
has deceived applicant and induced him to make certain payment by giving
false promise of good returns. It further appears that though amount was
accepted by S.K. Corporation towards transportation of goods through
containers, in fact, S.K. Corporation was not at all having business of
transportation. There was no transportation of goods as such. Accused have
fooled the informant and received huge amounts from him. They created
another entity (i.e Micron Logi) and showed that the informant has received
returns from Micron Logi company only to create a picture of some
transactions of transportation.

13.

Thus, apparently it can be seen that it is not a case of failed
business transactions, as is tried to be canvassed by the applicant. However, it
is out and out a case of cheating and forgery. Had this a case of default in
making payment owing to some genuine business difficulty, this Court would
have considered applicant’s case sympathetically. However, it appears that
there is a well thought and planed conspiracy to cheat. There is
overwhelming material collected by the investigation agency, showing
indulgence of applicant.

6
14.

Cri.B.A.419-2024
It further needs to be noted that the owner of S.K. Corporation
namely Smt. Bitoo Khan happens to be wife present of applicant. It appears
that applicant is master mind behind the plot of cheating. Despite rejection of
application for anticipatory bail by this court, she is still absconding. I find
there is further scope of investigation in light of letter/communication by
informant in the form of Exhibit-J pointed out by the learned advocate for
intervenor. Investigation officer needs to consider the same, if found
necessary under the law. Thus, though chargesheet is filed against the present
applicant, investigation is yet not over. The money trail is yet not traced out.
The proceeds of the crime are not recovered. Hence, I find that though the
offences are triable by the Magistrate and though the chargesheet is filed
(against the applicant), applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. His
release may hamper further investigation. He may pressurize the informant
and other witnesses.

15.

The cumulative effect of aforesaid discussion makes me to
declined bail. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
The Criminal Bail Application No. 419 of 2024 stands rejected
and disposed of accordingly.
SWAPNIL
DINKARRAO
TAWSHIKAR
Date : 10-04-2024
Digitally signed
by SWAPNIL
DINKARRAO
TAWSHIKAR
Date:
2024.04.15
14:42:05 +0530
(Dr. S. D. Tawshikar)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
C.R.No.10
Dictated on
: 10-04-2024
Transcribed on
: 12-04-2024
(Dated 11.04.2024, 13.04.2024 and 14.04.2024 are public holiday)
Corrected on
: 12-04-2024 (AOH)
Signed on
: 15-04-2024
7
Cri.B.A.419-2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
15.04.2024 02:40p.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/ 10.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on
15.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
15.04.2024