1
Cri BA No.261-2024
MHCC020017832024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.261 OF 2024
Sunil Tanaji Ghatvisave,
Age: 48 Years, Occ: Business.

]
] …Applicant.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Dadar Police Station Vide C.R. ]
No.80 of 2023.)
] …Respondent.
Advocate Khithani for applicant /accused.
APP Sulbha Joshi for the State.
CORAM :
SHRI. S. B. PAWAR,
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)
DATE
:
04th MARCH, 2024.
ORDER
This is second bail application after filing charge-sheet by
the applicant for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in connection with C.R. No.80 of 2023 registered with
Dadar Police Station for offence under sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467,
468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant
assured and promised the first informant Dattaprasad Rajaram Bait and
witnesses to provide them houses in century mill workers colony of
MHADA at discounted price and from 2017 to 2019 extracted aggregate
2
Cri BA No.261-2024
amount of Rs.2,30,60,000/- from them. He further prepared forged
documents to show that the houses were allotted to them in MHADA
lottery. He misappropriated the amount and utilized the amount for his
personal use. It is alleged that the applicant, in connivance with other
accused, committed the offence of cheating, forgery, misappropriation
and criminal breach of trust.
3.

The applicant seeks bail on the ground that he is innocent
and has been falsely implicated by the prosecution. There is delay of
more than four years in filing complaint. Offence of forgery is not made
out. During police custody of the applicant, nothing incriminating is
recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicant. He has no
criminal antecedents and he is having roots in the society. Charge-sheet
has been filed in September, 2023. However, till date charge is not
framed. Other co-accused have been granted bail.
4.

Prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds that amount
of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was credited in the bank accounts of the applicant
and he has diverted the said amount in different accounts and further
withdrawn the cash amount. C.R. No.497 of 2023 for offence under
sections 420 and 406 of IPC is registered against the applicant. Other
co-accused are yet to be arrested. There is possibility that applicant
may hamper in further investigation and destroy the important
evidence. The investigation regarding forged documents is still going
on. The applicant has no fixed address at Mumbai. He has frequently
changed his address therefore, it will be difficult to secure his presence.
5.

Heard Mr. Khithani, learned Advocate for the applicant,
learned APP Sulbha Joshi for the State and Investigating Officer.

3
Cri BA No.261-2024
Learned Advocate for the applicant argued that the applicant is in
custody since June, 2023. All the other co-accused are on bail. Though
charge-sheet is filed in the month of November – December, 2023 yet
charge is not framed. The charge-sheet is bulky and therefore, trial of
the case may take considerable time. Applicant can not be detained
indefinitely by way of punishment. The memorandum of undertakings
entered into between the applicant and witnesses is the matter of trial.
Investigation against the applicant is complete and no purpose would be
served by detaining the applicant in jail.

He urged to admit the
applicant on bail on any stringent conditions.
6.

Learned APP and Investigating Officer submitted that the
applicant has no fixed address. Learned APP submitted that earlier bail
application of the applicant after filing charge-sheet is rejected and
there is no change in circumstances to entertain the present application.
Investigating Officer further submitted that two more aides of the
applicant are still not arrested. There is possibility that the applicant
may abscond as he was not traceable initially after registration of crime
and he may hamper the further investigation.
7.

I have carefully considered submissions of both the sides. It
is matter of record that after filing charge-sheet, applicant had filed
Criminal Bail Application No.2989 of 2023 and the same is rejected vide
order dated 11.12.2023. While rejecting the said application, this Court
observed that applicant is the prime accused in the crime and his role
can not be equated with other co-accused released on bail so as to apply
the ground of parity in his favour. Though charge-sheet was filed, it was
observed that certain other co-accused are yet to be arrested and
therefore, investigation was in progress.

The prayer for bail was
4
Cri BA No.261-2024
rejected on the grounds that there is possibility of the applicant
indulging in similar acts and tampering with the evidence.
8.

The present application is filed on 31.01.2024, hardly
within two months from the date of earlier order. Learned Advocate for
the applicant failed to point out any substantial change in circumstances
to consider the subsequent prayer for regular bail within two months.
9.

As noted in the reply filed by prosecution, the applicant has
no permanent address in Mumbai.

It is specific condition of the
prosecution that the applicant was absconding. FIR is registered on
22.03.2023.

However, it appears that the applicant is arrested on
23.06.2023.
10.

Apparently, the transactions have taken place within the
period from 2017 to 2019 and there is delay in lodging complaint.
However, the copy of charge-sheet produced on record shows that there
is strong prima facie case against the applicant. He is the main accused
involved in cheating and preparation of forged documents as certain
forged documents are recovered from his house. It appears that the
applicant has utilized the said amount for his personal use for
purchasing a house at Panvel and Innova Car as well as for medical
education of his daughter.

He has criminal antecedents. Therefore,
considering his modus operandi there is possibility of repetition of
similar offence. Moreover, the possibility that the applicant may flee
from justice can not be ruled out in the light of the magnitude of the
fraud and aggregate amount involved in the offence. Therefore, in my
view, this being successive bail application without substantive change
in circumstances, considering the role played by the applicant, he can
5
Cri BA No.261-2024
not be admitted to bail on any terms and conditions. The application is
liable to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.261 of 2024 filed by applicant Sunil
Tanaji Ghatvisave in C.R. No.80 of 2023 registered with Dadar Police
Station for offence under sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby rejected.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.261 of 2024 is disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 04/03/2024
Order Dictated on: 04/03/2024
Transcribed on : 04/03/2024
Checked on
: 05/03/2024
Signed on
: 05/03/2024
(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
05.03.2024
Upload Time
3.07 p.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 04.03.2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 05.03.2024
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 05.03.2024
on