Final Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: 2
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, 12TH COURT,
BANDRA, MUMBAI.
Bail Application No.775/BA/2026 CNR No.MHMM18-003034-2026 C.R.
No.449/2025 of SHAHU NAGAR POLICE STATION.
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION
The accused, Vivek Kamble, filed the present bail application on
23.03.2026. On the same day, the say of the learned APP was called and
made returnable on 27.03.2026. As the charge-sheet had already been
filed, the say of the Investigating Officer was not called.
2. However, on 25.03.2026, the informant and one James Godwin,
who has no direct concern with the case, filed an application (Exh.4)
seeking permission to allow James Godwin to participate in the bail
proceedings along with the learned APP under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C.
and Section 32 of the Advocates Act on behalf of the de-facto
complainant and victim. On the same day, the applicant was directed to
point out the legal provision supporting such a prayer.
3. On 27.03.2026, this Court was on leave. Thereafter, on
04.04.2026, the learned APP filed his say on the bail application. The
application at Exh.4 was thereafter fixed for arguments on 06.04.2026.
On that day, the complainant appeared along with James Godwin, who
also filed another application similar to Exh.4.
4. On 08.04.2026, the complainant again appeared with
James Godwin, and arguments of the learned APP and James Godwin
on Exh.4 were heard. On 10.04.2026, the complainant and James
-- 1 of 5 --
2
Godwin remained present, and arguments of the accused, the learned
APP, and James Godwin were heard on Exh.4. On 16.04.2026, the
complainant and James Godwin were present, and the application at
Exh.4 was rejected by this Court.
5. On the same day, the complainant was directed to file his
say on the bail application, returnable on 18.04.2026. However, from
18.04.2026 onwards, the complainant has remained absent and has
been sending applications through post and via his son. It appears from
the record that the complainant’s reply (Exh.18) was ultimately filed on
27.04.2026.
6. In view of Circular No. Insp-I/177/2025 dated 08.10.2025
issued by the Hon’ble Registrar General, High Court, Appellate Side,
Bombay, bail applications are required to be decided expeditiously,
preferably within two months. The complainant actively participated in
the proceedings from 25.03.2026 to 16.04.2026. However, thereafter,
when the matter reached the stage of filing his say, he deliberately
remained absent with an apparent intention to delay the adjudication of
the bail application.
7. On 27.04.2026 and 28.04.2026, opportunities were
granted to the complainant to address arguments; however, he
remained absent on both occasions. The bail application cannot be kept
pending indefinitely and must be disposed of at the earliest, preferably
within the prescribed period. More than one month has already elapsed
since the filing of the application. The conduct of the complainant has
effectively stalled the adjudication of the accused’s right to have his bail
application decided.
-- 2 of 5 --
2
8. Though it appears that James Godwin is acting at the behest of
the complainant, such tendencies must be discouraged at the threshold.
The complainant, with the assistance of James Godwin, cannot be
permitted to misuse or obstruct the judicial process.
9. Today as well, the complainant has sent an email stating
that, “the accused is already released on bail in FIR No.24/2026 of
Malad Police Station. A similar mistake had occurred earlier, therefore,
it is requested that, before proceeding further, these facts kindly be
considered.” This communication appears to be an indirect attempt to
dissuade the Court from proceeding with the matter. However, this
Court is not influenced by such communications.
10 Therefore, even at the risk of unfounded allegations being
made against this Court, I am inclined to decide the bail application on
merits today, as the matter is already fixed for orders.
11. On 18.04.2026, the complainant filed an adjournment
application (Exh.9) seeking supply of a copy of the bail application.
Accordingly, the accused was directed to furnish the same. The police
report dated 18.04.2026 indicates that an attempt was made to serve
the bail application at the address provided in the charge-sheet;
however, the complainant was not present. Attempts to contact him
telephonically were unsuccessful. Consequently, the notice was sent to
him via WhatsApp.
12. A subsequent police report dated 25.04.2026 (Exh.14)
reveals that further attempts were made to serve the complainant at his
residence and workplace, but he was not available at either place. A
neighbour confirmed that the complainant resided at the said address.
-- 3 of 5 --
2
Ultimately, in the presence of two panch witnesses, the police pasted the
notice and copy of the bail application on a conspicuous part of his
residence and prepared a panchnama. The same was duly recorded in
the station diary, and photographic evidence was produced. Screenshots
also indicate that the bail application was sent to the complainant via
WhatsApp on 18.04.2026.
13. Thus, it is evident that despite the complainant’s attempts
to avoid service, the police have effected proper service of the bail
application. Furthermore, since the filing of Exh.4, the complainant was
aware of the pendency of the bail application. Despite this, he continues
to claim non-receipt of the same. Sufficient opportunity has therefore
been afforded to the complainant to file his say.
14. This Court is scheduled to remain on summer vacation from
11.05.2026 to 24.05.2026, and several old matters and cases involving
senior citizens are already listed for judgment between 02.05.2026 and
08.05.2026. In these circumstances, further adjournment of the present
bail application is not feasible.
15. I have perused the bail application, the say filed by the
learned APP, and the reply of the complainant (Exh.18). I have also
heard the learned advocate for the accused and the learned APP.
16. The accused is charged with offences punishable under Sections
318(4) and 316(2) of the BNS. The prosecution alleges that the accused
cheated the complainant by inducing him to pay an amount of
3,54,000/- on the false promise of securing employment for his son	₹
and another person in the Railway Department, and thereafter
misappropriated the said amount.
-- 4 of 5 --
2
17. However, it is pertinent to note that the accused has not
been arrested during the course of investigation. In such circumstances,
rejection of the bail application at this stage would serve no purpose.
There is no material to indicate that the accused has previously
absconded or that there is any likelihood of his absconding in future.
The offences are triable by this Court, the investigation is complete, and
the charge-sheet has been filed.
18. In view of the fact that the accused was not arrested during
investigation, the consideration of the bail application is largely
procedural in nature. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. Accused is released on furnishing P. B. of Rs.10,000/- and on
deposit of cash bail of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only).
2. Accused to submit his address proof.
3. Accused shall not tamper the evidence and shall not pressurize
the prosecution witnesses.
4. Accused shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court till conclusion of the trial.
5. Accused is directed to remain present each and every date and
in default their bail bonds would automatically forfeit.
6. Accused shall not misuse the liberty.
(Girish S. Mane)
Mumbai Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Date : 29.04.2026 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai
-- 5 of 5 --