Bail Application No.672/2024.

MHCC020043852024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 672 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 421 OF 2023.

Vijay Yesudas Nadar
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.421/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Ms. Aarushi Yadav for the Applicant.
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 : 15TH MARCH, 2024.

Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.672/2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Vijay Yesudas Nadar being
accused in C.R.No.421/2023 registered with Matunga Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B
and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as,
“IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “Cr.P.C.”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, since 27.09.2021 until
14.02.2022 accused namely Ali Raza Shaikh, Jay @ Raju Manglani,
applicant Valmik Goler, Vijay Nadar i.e. applicant and Vikrant D.
Sonawane in connivance with each other conspired and obtained the
faith of the informant and stated that, the informant would be
exonerated from the offence registered against him. Accordingly, the
informant was also appraised of the fact that, his liquor license would
be transfer and he was also be sustained with benefits from the
APMC Market, New Bombay and under this influence the applicant
alongwith the co-accused received Rs.1,95,68,000/- from the
informant and when the informant asked them for the said amount
he was threatened upon gunpoint.

Accordingly, the offence was
registered under Sections ibid. Further, accused Ali Raza Shaikh was
put under arrest and upon his revelations he has stated for the role of
the applicant/accused.

Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.672/2024.

3.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated in the present crime. It is
stated that, the applicant/accused is attributed with mere role of
introducing the parties and is stated to be a recipient of an amount to
the tune of Rs.3,30,000/-.

It is stated by the Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused that, he is ready to tender such amount with the
registry of this Court and that, he also proposes to be an approver in
the
present
crime.

Such
proposal
is
also
given
by
the
applicant/accused to the prosecution. Hence, further incarceration is
not required. The applicant/accused is not the author of the forged
documents. No criminal offence is made out from the substratum of
FIR in the charge-sheet. The case of the informant is document based.
Also, that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and nothing is to
be recovered at the instance of the applicant/accused. Hence, the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlarging the applicant on
bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the applicant/accused has in
connivance with the co-accused appraised the informant for getting
such liquor license held in the name of one Vikrant Sonawane to be
transferred the informant’s name and has thus played a crucial role in
forging of PAN card and that the applicant/accused was shown as
Vikrant Sonawane, in whose name the liquor license stood, in order
to gain the faith and confidence of the informant. Also the amount
received by the applicant/accused in the present crime is yet to be
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.672/2024.
recovered. The entire commission of crime is under the racket under
operation and therefore, in order to unveil such facts the
applicant/accused is required for the purposes of confrontation. Ld.
Prosecutor further apprehends for abscondance, tampering of
evidence and threatening to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld.
Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.

6.

Upon
meticulous
examination
of
case
record,
bail
application and the appended documents it is palpably clear that, the
applicant/accused has admittedly stated for he being a recipient of
amount to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/-. He also has admittedly stated
for his active participation in the present crime, wherein he had
introduced the co-accused with that of the informant. Furthermore,
it is the applicant/accused who himself has stated that, he has
proposed to be an approver in the present crime. This ipso-facto
disentitles the applicant/accused from any such relief of enlargement
on bail.
7.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has relied upon two
case laws/judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which ensue
as under,
1. Rizwan Mohammad Chaman Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 544/2020, decided on
19.03.2021.

Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.672/2024.

2. Nanji Masri Gujariya Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1554/2021, decided on
05.07.2021.
8.

Considering the conspectus of the aforesaid case laws /
judgments, I do humbly submit that, they are salutary to myself. It is
evident that, in the case of Rizwan Mohammad Chaman (Supra), the
Hon’ble High Court has refused for such relief of bail, while relying
upon the ratio as held in the case of P. Chidambaram and Y. S.
Jaganmohan Reddy.

Apart from the same, the chronology of
transactions and grievance not being agitated by the informant for
such large quantum of time will naturally have no bearing at this
juncture.

Secondly, while considering the case of Nanji Masri
Gujariya (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court has observed for the
illegality of transaction and the role of the applicant pertaining to
introducing parties. It is pertinent that, the considerations as held
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. stand on a different pedestal and cannot
be applied by way of a straight jacket formula while considering the
regular bail except the role of the applicant with regard to
introducing parties the applicant/accused has not agitated for the
factum of illegality as committed by the applicant/accused. Hence,
the said case laws/orders are of no any assistance to the case of
applicant/accused.
9.

Consider the fulcrum of arguments as advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused it transpires that, the applicant has
himself admitted for his role in the present crime. Therefore, I do not
Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.672/2024.
find this as a fit case for grant of bail and there is every possibility
that, the applicant/accused might tamper with the prosecution
evidence.

In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the
application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra:ORDER
Bail Application No.672/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 15.03.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.03.16
15:07:52 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 15.03.2024.
Transcribed on : 15.03.2024.
HHJ signed on : 16.03.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.672/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
16.03.2024
03.07 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
15.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
16.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
16.03.2024
uploaded
Page 7 of 7