B.A. 697/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020040392022 )
Vinay Suresh Angane
Age: 46 years, Occ: Service
R/o: Nakshtra CHSL, Room
No.2102, Shailendra Nagar,
Dahisar East,Mumbai400 068.
…Applicant/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of Tilak Nagar P.Stn.
Vide C.R. No.04/2022)
…Respondents/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Gaurav Pandey Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL. JUDGE
SHRI G.B.Gurao (C.R.17)
DATE : 06/04/2022.
ORDER
1.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail by
applicant/accused Vinay Suresh Angane in crime No.04/2022 under
section 406,420 of IPC registered at police station Tilak Nagar, Mumbai.
Facts in brief are as under :
2.
Complainant Tara Malvankar is widow and she resides with her
daughters.
In January, 2019 complainant wanted to purchase the
house. Therefore, advocate Mr. Abhay Kotak asked complainant to meet
Mr. Vinay Angane i.e. accused. Accordingly, complainant met accused.
Accused told that he has acquaintance with officer of MMRDA and
B.A. 697/2022
..2..
Order
there is 10% quota of MMRDA in every building. He will give her room
for Rs. 15 lacs. Complainant kept trust on accused. Complainant paid
Rs.15 lacs to the accused.
Complainant again paid Rs.22,670/ to
accused. It is further alleged that even after one year accused did not
give her room. Therefore, in January 2020 accused gave cheques drawn
on Saraswat Bank, Kandivali (W), Mumbai. However, the cheques were
not honoured because accused had stopped the payment. Accordingly,
complainant lodged report in the police station.
3.
On the report crime is registered and investigation is in progress.
4.
Mr. Gaurav
Pandey Advocate for applicant/accused has
submitted that applicant/accused is innocent and he has not committed
any crime. He is falsely implicated in the present crime. The
investigation is completed. His antecedents are clear. He is ready to
abide
by the conditions, if any imposed by the Court. He further
submitted that bail is rule and jail is an exception. Hence, he prayed to
release the applicant/accused on bail. In support of his contentions he
relied on; 1) State of Rajasthan Jaipur Vs. Balchand alias Baliay,
(1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 308. 2) State of Kerala Vs. Raneef,
(2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 784 3) Bhagirathsinh Vs. State of
Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 658/1983, SCC.
5.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State has submitted that offence
is serious. Investigation is in progress. He further submitted that police
have traced accused with the help of CDR. If the accused is released on
bail then he will abscond. Hence, he prayed to reject the application.
6.
Offence punishable under section 406, 420 of IPC is registered
B.A. 697/2022
..3..
Order
against the accused. Accused is arrested and he was remanded to police
custody and now accused is in judicial custody. I have perused the
authorities filed by Advocate for accused.
1) State of Rajasthan Jaipur Vs. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977)
4 Supreme Court Cases 308, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“The basic rule is to grant bail except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the
course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences, or intimidating witness and the like. The
gravity of the offence involved which is likely to induce the
petitioner to avoid the course of justice as well as the heinousness
of the crime should also be taken into account by the Court. Any
possibility of absconding or evasion or other abuse can be taken
care of by a direction that the petitioner should report himself
before the police station once every fortnight.”
2) State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases
784, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“In deciding bail applications an important factor which should
certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in
concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the
accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted. Who will
restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of
the Constitution. Which is the most basic of all the fundamental
rights in our Constitution. Which is the most basic of all the
fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a
case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one
of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the
present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody
(as stated in Para 2 of his counteraffidavit), and we see no
reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a
long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken’s
novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even
his name in the Bastile.”
3) Bhagirathsinh Vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.
B.A. 697/2022
..4..
Order
658/1983, SCC,The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“It is necessary for the court to examine the nature and gravity of
the circumstances in which the offence was committed. If there
is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other
circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established,
the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the
accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether
the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial
or that he is likely to abuse the discretion grained in his favour
by tampering with evidence.”
7.
It is to be noted that the investigation is in progress. Learned APP
submitted that accused has cheated many peoples. From the say of
investigating officer, it appears that accused was not traceable and he
was arrested by with the help of CDR. Therefore, considering that the
investigation is at preliminary stage, seriousness of offence, I find that
accused is not entitled for bail. Therefore, following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No.697/2022 is hereby rejected and disposed
of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by GIRISH
BALKRISHNA
GIRISH
BALKRISHNA GURAO
Date:
GURAO
2022.04.08
17:28:20 +0530
(G.B.Gurao)
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 06.04.2022.
: 7 & 8.04.2022.
: 08.04.2022.
B.A. 697/2022
..5..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.04.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
No.)
HHJ SHRI.G.B.Gurao,(C.R.No.17)
Addl. Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order
06.04.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
08.04.2022.
order uploaded on
08.04.2022.