BA7072022
1
DT.17.05.2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.707 OF 2022
IN
C.R.NO.19 of 2020
Mr.Tejal Madhukar Rupji
Aged: 51 years, Indian Inhabitant
Having office at C26,3,Shriram
Industrial Estate, G.D.Ambekar,
Marg, Kidwai Nagar, Wadala,
Mumbai 400 039.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Applicant/
(Org.Accused No.2)
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
R.A.Kidwai Marg Police Station,
Mumbai.
)
)
)
Respondent.
Mr.Mangesh Deshmukh Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused No.2.
Shri. Ajit Chavan, Ld. APP for State/Respondent
CORAM : HHJ SMT CHITRA HANKARE
DATE : 17.05.2022
C.R.NO.10
ORDER
1.
This second bail application is filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as “Cr.P.C..” in short) for
grant of bail in C.R. no.19/2020 registered by R.A.Kidwai Marg police
station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as “I.P.C..” in short).
BA7072022
2.
2
DT.17.05.2022
Facts of the case are that complainant is a Labour Legal Advisor and
appointed by accused No.2 as company representative. Applicant/Accused
No.2 along with other accused induced him to book a flat. He has paid Rs.
5 lakhs by cheque and Rs.21 lakhs in cash. The agreement and allotment
letter was not issued to him by accused. The complainant came to know
about arresting of both accused. Accused further stopped communication
with him. Accused along with other accused had cheated so many other
persons for huge amount. His previous bail application was rejected.
However bail was granted to accused No.1 by the Hon’ble High Court.
Therefore this accused is entitled for bail on the ground of parity and also
on the ground that accused No.1’s health condition is critical and there is
no one to take his care but he expired afterwards. He has also claimed bail
on the merits of the case.
3.
Prosecution objected application on the ground that accused is
undergoing punishment awarded by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum. Therefore investigation could not be done. The total amount for
which accused cheated is about Rs.1,87,72000/ which is not yet
recovered. Many offences are pending against him. If he is released on bail
he will pressurize witnesses and also abscond.
4.
Ld. Advocate for accused submitted that whatever amount was paid
he has given receipts of it. There is nothing on record how the complainant
brought such huge amount in cash. I.T. return of the complainant is not
produced. Another accused is already released on bail.
5.
Ld.APP submitted that amount involved is more than Crores of
BA7072022
3
DT.17.05.2022
rupees. Accused cannot be released only by directing him to pay the
amount which was received by cheque. The remaining amount is also to be
paid. Inspite of receipt of amount no agreement was made. This is
economical offence where special guidelines are given. He will dispose of
money if released on bail. Another accused was released on medical
ground only.
6.
Except release of other accused on bail there are no change in
circumstances to file this bail application. On perusing order on bail
application of accused No.1, it appears that he was released on bail
considering his health condition, situation of Pandemic COVID19 as well
as his age. No such ground is available to this accused. Hence case of this
accused is different. Therefore ground of parity is not applicable to this
accused.
7.
It is pertinent to note that yet police could not get custody of
accused. There is no recovery of amount from accused. Some payment was
made by cheque. It was received by accused. He is not showing his
willingness to pay amount might be received in cash. Huge amount is
involved. He is already convicted by one of the court. Many cases are
pending against him. So he is habitual offender. The nature of offence is
very serious and so many persons are cheated by applicant/accused. The
grounds for bail are not satisfactory. Considering all above circumstances,
he is not entitled for bail. Hence I proceed to pass following order.
BA7072022
4
DT.17.05.2022
ORDER
Bail Application No.707 of 2022 is rejected.
Date : 17.05.2022
Dictated on : 17.05.2022
Typed on : 18.05.2022
Signed on : 19.05.2022
(CHITRA HANKARE)
Addl. Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Mumbai
BA7072022
5
DT.17.05.2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
03.06.2022 10.45 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(V. S. Shinde )
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SMT.C.R.HANKARE
(C.R. No.10)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
17.05.2022
of
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 19.5.2022
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
03.06.2022