Interim Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: -- 1 -- C.C.NO.766/PW/2025
Bail Order
IN THE COURT OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
9TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
C.C.NO. 766/PW/2025
Khar police Station.
U/Sec.420, 406 r/w.34 of IPC
Order on Bail application No.728/BA/2025
(Passed on 03.04.2025)
This is an application seeking release of the accused No.1
Mrs. Suchita Santosh Shelar and 2) Mr. Santosh Dhondu Shelar on bail.
It is stated that the accused are in custody since 24/01/2025. It is stated
that they are falsely implicated. There were cordial relations between
the accused and the informant and thus some financial help was
advanced by the informant to accused No.1 on a request which is
already repaid by her. Certain exchange of notices was there between
them but false and fabricated Leave and Licence Agreement having the
signature of accused No.2 appeared to have been executed by the
informant. Since long they are incarcerated in the prison. Nothing has
been recovered during the investigation. As such there is no need of
their detention. They have no criminal antecedents and further being
the residents of Mumbai, no chance of their abscondance. Further, the
accused are ready to abide by the terms and conditions. Hence, they
prayed for bail.
2. Ld. A.P.P. resisted the application stating that the offences
are serious in nature. The informant has been cheated with the huge
amount towards the heavy deposit. The MOU was also prepared but
still the possession is not given or the amount is returned. Further, the
..2/-
-- 1 of 4 --
-- 2 -- C.C.NO.766/PW/2025
Bail Order
same room has been given to the other persons on heavy deposit and
the cheating has been caused.
3. Gone through the respectful submissions of Ld. Counsels.
During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the accused further
relied on the case of Dilip Kaur and Others Vs. Jagnar Singh,wherein it
is held that,
“When the dispute between the parties is essentially of a
civil nature resulting from the breach of contract for non-
refunding of the amount of advance, the same would not
constitute cheating”.
He further placed the reliance on the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal
Shah Vs. State of Gujarat. The ratio laid down therein is that,
“Mere inability of the accused to return the amount
cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating
unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown
right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is the
mens rea which is the crux of the offence”.
4. I must mention here that after filing of the bail application,
the charge-sheet came to be filed on 19/03/2025.
5. On going through the abovesaid arguments, I must make a
note that,it is mainly alleged that on account of the giving the room on
heavy deposit the huge amount of Rs.18,50,000/- was taken by the
accused from the informant. Likewise, the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on
the same reason was taken by the accused from Gani Akbar Shaikh. As
such the alleged cheating of Rs.33,50,000/- has been caused. If the
charge-sheet is minutely perused no account statement showing the
above entries is there on record. The Leave and Licence Agreement
..3/-
-- 2 of 4 --
-- 3 -- C.C.NO.766/PW/2025
Bail Order
between accused No.1 and Khashaba Kashmiri as well as Gani Akbar
Shaikh are there on record. From the developments seen, it dates back
to the period 2021 to 2023. Hence, the question arises as to why it took
more than six months in filing the report to the police station. All the
documentary evidence is seized during the investigation. The
investigation is totally completed. Nothing remained to be recovered as
seen from the investigation. The charge-sheet is also filed. The
execution of the alleged Leave and Licence Agreement is itself
challenged by the accused as being false and fabricated with the theory
of hand loan and its repayment. Further, the exchange of notices
between the accused and informant is also appearing there in April
2022 itself. Therefore, why the FIR is at such a belated stage is really a
question before me. The transaction prima facie is seen of civil nature
and thus the detail assessment of the evidence during the trial seems
necessary. But for that the long incarceration of the accused in prison
cannot be justified.
6. As regards the considerations for bail,as held and observed in
catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, that the object of the
bail is merely to secure appearance of the accused at trial and the
deprivation of the liberty must be considered unless his detention is
absolutely necessary. Further, it is not a rule that the bail should be
denied in every case and ultimate consideration would be for securing
the presence of the accused to stand trial. Here, as far as the offences
are concerned, those are triable by this Court and the complicity of the
accused in the present offences can be undoubtedly proved by the
prosecution at the time of trial. When the charge-sheet is already file,
the question of tampering the prosecution evidence would not come in
..4/-
-- 3 of 4 --
-- 4 -- C.C.NO.766/PW/2025
Bail Order
picture. Further, the accused also appear to be resident of Mumbai,
question of their abscondance does not arise. Hence, in such
circumstances I have no hesitation to allow the bail application. Hence,
the order.
O R D E R
1. Accused No.No.1 Mrs. Suchita Santosh Shelar and 2) Mr. Santosh
Dhondu Shelar be released on bail on their executing P.R.Bond
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)each and one or
two sureties in the like amount.
2. The accused shall not influenced any witness or tamper any
evidence in any manner
3. The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai without
prior permission of the Court.
4. The accused shall attend the Court on each date of hearing unless
specifically exempted.
Sd/-
( A.K.Awari )
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Date :- 03.04.2025 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
../-
-- 4 of 4 --