Interim Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 371 PW 2020 State Vs Krushna
CNR MHMM18-000910-2020
ORDER BELOW B.A. NO.2650/2022
1. Perused record. Heard both sides.
2. This is second application filed by accused, after filing of charge
sheet for bail under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The
applicant sought bail mainly on the grounds that he is in custody for more
than 30 months. The transaction is mainly of civil nature and he himself
was cheated by informant. Investigation is over, along with, other
grounds.
3. Ld. A.P.P. objected to it mainly on the grounds that huge amount is
involved. There occurred no change of circumstances to entertain and
decide this bail application. Accusations are well founded. Therefore,
application shall be rejected.
4. Admittedly, accused is in custody since last 30 months or more. It
is also admitted that his bail application after filing of charge sheet was
also rejected by this court. Therefore, only question remains whether this
application can be considered or not?
5. On being inquired about it with Ld. Advocate Smt. Shukla, she
informed that she came in contact with said accused during her jail visits
to under trial prisoners. She is doing said work out of humanity. Accused
is very poor, of very old age and accused is not in a position to approach
to Sessions Court or any other Higher Court. There is nobody to take care
of him, who will help him to apply for bail by approaching Higher Court.
6. Further, the record reflects that though accused is in jail for
substantial period charge is not yet framed. The maximum punishment
provided for most serious offence, with which accused is charged with is
seven years and almost half of the period of punishment is over. Recent
UTPC guidelines also directs that applications by such persons shall be
considered. In view of these aspects I am of the opinion that this second
application needs to be considered afresh on merits.
-- 1 of 2 --
C. C. No. 371 PW 2020 State Vs Krushna
CNR MHMM18-000910-2020
7. Admittedly investigation relating to accused is over and charge
sheet already filed. All the evidence is of documentary nature which is
either in custody of informant or public authorities. Majority of those
documents are already filed on record. Thus, possibility of tampering is
almost nil.
8. Another main ground assigned by Ld. Advocate is that transaction
is mainly of civil nature and suit is already pending between the parties.
The informant himself in an attempt to grab the property took advantage
of dire need of money of accused and tried to purchase it for lesser value.
When accused claimed proper value of the property, informant lodged this
false case. These contentions are supported by documentary evidence.
Further, these aspects create doubt about the prosecution version of the
matter and as such it entails bail.
9. The charge is yet to be framed. Accused is in custody since long.
The commencement of the trial and its conclusion will take substantial
time. Accused is of old age and seems to be poor. Pre-trial detention is not
warranted. Considering period of detention already undergone, which is
almost half of the whole punishment provided for the offences and all
these facts and circumstances and reasons assigned in the bail application,
I am of the opinion that the prayer needs consideration and hence,
following order -
ORDER
a. Application is allowed.
b. Accused is released on bail on his furnishing P.B. and S.B. of
Rs.25,000/-. Permission granted to deposit cash security in substitution of
surety bond.
c. Accused shall submit his detail address and proof thereof.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 29.07.2022 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
-- 2 of 2 --