Bail Application No.589/2024.
MHCC020039782024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2024.
IN
C.R.NO. 674 OF 2022.

Rahul @ Rahul Kumar Mansukhlal Waghela
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of RAK Marg Police Station)
… Respondent
Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. M. A. Khan 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 : 07TH MARCH, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant/accused Rahul @ Rahul
Kumar Mansukhlal Waghela being accused in C.R.No.674/2022
registered with RAK Marg Police Station for the offences punishable
Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.589/2024.
under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 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, the complainant has
preferred a written complaint as on 09.05.2022 against Shriji
International and its proprietors along with its employees and against
Laxmi Enterprises and its proprietor. Further as on 07.12.2022 police
recorded the statement of the complainant and post conducting
preliminary investigation offence is registered under the Sections
ibid.

Complainant is a proprietor of firm namely “We Care
Medicines” and is engaged into the supply of raw materials required
for production of medicines throughout India. It is stated that, the
complainant takes purchase orders and supplies such material
through their transporters by raising invoices for their consignments
and receives payment accordingly by various modes of payment.
3.

As on dated 26.09.2019 the complainant firm was in
receipt of an email for such requirement of medicinal raw material to
the tune of Rs.1,44,055/- from the Shriji International. Thereafter as
on 30.10.2019 purchase order to the tune of amount of Rs.5,66,400/and another purchase order to the tune of Rs.14,55,528/- and a third
order to the tune of amount of Rs.16,07,750/- inclusive of GST.
Accordingly, the complainant raised invoices and follow up for the
payments
against
the
consignments
delivered
to
them
and
accordingly the proprietor of Shriji International that is accused
Sanjay Suren issued 3 post dated cheques which were dishonored
post depositing them for clearance.
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.589/2024.
4.

Similarly, the complainant approached proprietor of Laxmi
Enterprises Arush Agrawal who placed a purchase order for sum of
Rs.20,44,350/- inclusive of GST. Accordingly, the complainant had
delivered consignments and raised invoices against the delivered
consignments.

Complainant tried to contact either of them, but
either of them are not reachable. Hence, the complainant was of the
impression that, he has been cheated.

It further revealed to the
complainant that, the proprietor of Laxmi Enterprises also has
prepared forged documents and it is alleged the said documents were
forged with the aid of Rahul Vaghela i.e. the applicant/accused in the
present crime in order to dupe the complainant. Thus, the Sections
pertaining to forgery were therefore invoked and the name of the
applicant/accused was accordingly impleaded.
5.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated. It is categorically stated that,
the case of prosecution is regarding cheating and that, inspite of the
applicant/accused being behind bars, nothing is recovered at the
instance
of
the
applicant/accused.

It
is
stated
that,
the
applicant/accused had never placed any order for raw medicinal
material, nor has ever used his mail ID for the same. Further, the two
proprietary firms which placed orders do not have any concerned
with the applicant/accused. Further, the FIR states that, the accused
Sanjay Suren had issued three cheques which were dishonored.
6.

Further, entire transaction is of civil nature and considering
the accusations no specific role has been assigned to the
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.589/2024.
applicant/accused. Thus, further incarceration is not necessitated.
The accused persons have falsely named the applicant/accused to
have given their documents for preparing alleged forged documents.
Noting
is
placed
on
record
propelling
the
applicant/accused along with accused person.
Advocate
for
applicant/accused
prayed
for
nexus
of
the
Hence, the Ld.
enlarging
the
applicant/accused on bail.
7.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia have stated that, the applicant/accused is the main
artist in the present crime and he utilizes such technology in order to
forge such documents. Further, it is stated that, two wanted accused
are
to
be
traced.

Also,
there
is
every
possibility
that,
applicant/accused might threatened the prosecution witnesses and
hence, the prosecution apprehends, abscondance, tampering of
evidence and threatening to prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the
Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
8.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant and Ld. Prosecutor for
the state. Perused application and reply.

9.

Upon meticulous examination of case record, application,
reply and appended documents it evinces to myself that, charge-sheet
has been filed in the matter and as alleged on the earlier occasion the
prosecution has apparently failed to derive such nexus between the
applicant and the co-accused.

In this regard, considering the
quantum of sum involvement in the present crime it is to the tune of
Rs.56,00,000/-. The factum of forgery and cheating are propelled by
Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.589/2024.
the prosecution and the applicant being in connivance have tried to
liquidate their monetary gains, but throughout the charge-sheet such
factum of connivance is not pointed out by the prosecution. On the
contrary the prosecution has filed a casual reply.
10.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments of the Ld. Advocate
for applicant/accused it is evident that, the applicant is not stated to
be a recipient of amount, further the applicant is also not stated to
have placed such orders and the factum of forgery also lies under
speculation. The prosecution will have all such opportunity to lead
such evidence during the course of trial, but at this juncture when
there is prima-facie deficit role of the applicant/accused and that,
prosecution also has filed such casual reply, the apprehension of the
prosecution can be taken care of by saddling stringent conditions
upon the applicant/accused including marking of his presence before
the respondent agency. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold
that, the application deserves consideration. Hence, order infra: –
ORDER
1. Bail Application No.589/2024 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Rahul @ Rahul Kumar
Mansukhlal
Waghela
being
accused
in
C.R.No.674/2022 registered with RAK Marg Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of Indian
Penal Code alongwith Sections 3 and 25 of the India
Arms Act, 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
Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.589/2024.
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 RAK Marg
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.
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.589/2024
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 07.03.2024.

stands
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.03.11
17:11:33 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 07.03.2024.
Transcribed on : 07.03.2024.
HHJ signed on : 11.03.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.589/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
11.03.2024
05.11 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
07.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
11.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
11.03.2024
Page 7 of 7