Final Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: CRIME NO. 29/2026 OF RCF POLICE STATION, MUMBAI.
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION NO. 71/BA/2026
Read the applicant and say. Heard Ld. Advocate for the
accused and Ld. APP. The Ld. Counsel of accused submitted that, the
accused are in M.C.R. The accused are falsely implicated in the case.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception. The accused will co-operate with
the investigation as and when necessary. Hence, prayed for bail.
2) Ld. A.P.P. and I.O. resisted the present application on the
grounds that offence is serious in nature. Several cases were registered
against the accused no. 1. The proceeding of externment was also
conducted against the accused no. 1. Hence application is rejected.
3) Perused the remand papers. The accused were arrested for
the offence punishable under sec. 308(5), 3(5) of BNS. The accused are
in M.C.R. The main allegation against the accused is that the accused
demanded Rs. 50000/- per month form the informant for parking of
truck. However, the informant has not given anything to the accused
and went to the police station. Thereafter, police try to verify the
complaint and went alongwith the informant. The informant gave
Rs.1000/- to the accused no. 1 and police caught him in the trap. The
above said facts show that there was no threat of grievous hurt or
death. Further, the custody of accused are not required for the
investigation purpose. The amount of Rs. 1000/- has been already
seized from the accused. The maximum punishment of the offence is
not death or life imprisonment. The stolen amount was already seized
by the Investigating Officer. Hence, no purpose will be served by
keeping the accused behind the bar. Further, it appears that several
cases were registered against the accused. However, in view of the the
-- 1 of 3 --
judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Raosaheb Patole
Vs. State of Maharashtra, in criminal bail application no. 373 of 2011,
the pendency of criminal cases is not the ground for refusal of bail if the
accused are entitled for bail otherwise. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Prabhakar Tewari V/s. State of U.P. and Another in Cri. Appeal
No. 152 of 2020, in para no. 7 as observed that, the offence against the
accused is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases
pending against the accused. This factors by themselves can not be the
basis for refusal of prayer for bail. Therefore, it appears that the bail of
accused cannot be rejected due to pendency of criminal cases.
Considering allegations made against the accused, this Court thinks it fit
that on certain terms and conditions, the accused can be released on
bail. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
(1) The application is allowed.
(2) The accused be released on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of
Rs. 50,000/- each (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) or cash bail of
Rs. 20,000/- each with P. R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- each in
Crime No. 29/2026 for the offence punishable under sec.
308(5), 3(5) of BNS on following terms and conditions.
(3) (a) The accused shall not make any contact with the witness
and shall not tamper the prosecution evidence.
(b) The accused shall furnish their detail addresses,
mobile /contact numbers.
(c) In case of change of this residence or mobile/contact
numbers, they shall inform it to the Court and
investigating Officer.
-- 2 of 3 --
(d) The accused shall co-operate with the Investigating
Officer and shall attend the police station on every
Sunday in between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm. till filling of
charge-sheet.
(4) Copy of this order be communicated to the accused
through email and issuing letter to the Superintendent of
concerned Jail Authority.
(5) Bail Application is disposed off accordingly.
Mumbai.
Date : 27.01.2026.
(D. S. Sharma)
Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai
-- 3 of 3 --