Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: -- 1 -- C.C.NO.830/PW/2025
Bail Order
IN THE COURT OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
9TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
C.C.NO. 830/PW/2025
Khar police Station.
U/Sec.420, 406 r/w.34 of IPC
Order on Bail application No.799/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 29/01/2025. It is stated
that they are falsely implicated. There was no written agreement
between the accused and the informant. No document is there to show
that the informant paid Rs.21,50,000/- to the accused. 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 informant
invested huge funds in the scheme run by the accused on the assurance
by the accused to return it. However, till the date no amount is returned
and thus cheating has been caused. There is a possibility of tampering
with the evidence as the investigation is in progress and the charge-
sheet is not filed.
3. Gone through the respectful submissions of Ld. Counsels.
During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the accused further
..2/-
-- 1 of 4 --
-- 2 -- C.C.NO.830/PW/2025
Bail Order
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 29/03/2025.
5. On going through the abovesaid arguments, I must make a
note that several statements of approximately 50 witnesses revealed
that they had given the various amount in Lakhs to the accused persons
in the scheme run by the accused. However, though major amounts are
shown to be paid to the accused, no documentary proof of it is placed
on record. Further, certain memorandum of understanding between the
accused Suchita and Pallavi Bhongale, Syara Banu Shaikh, Mona
Dhangar and the Promissory Notes executed between the accused and
Bushara Dastagir, the informant Vaishali Balasathi and Yashwant Pathar
are seen. Except this, no other documentary evidence is there on record.
If, all these transactions are perused, those appeared to have taken
place since 2019 till 2022. However, the FIR came to be filed on
23/01/2025. Therefore, the inordinate delay is already there. As these
..3/-
-- 2 of 4 --
-- 3 -- C.C.NO.830/PW/2025
Bail Order
transactions dates back to 2019 till 2022 and over the period of time
there have been several agreements between the accused and some of
the investors qua there. Mutual rights and obligations, till the date
nothing is placed before me as regards the action on the basis of it is
taken or not by the said investors. Certain bank records to the account
details is also placed which nowhere shows any credit or debit entry as
regards the amount invested by the investors. If, that is the situation,
there could have been any substantial recovery during the investigation.
But, it is not so. Thus, the said aspect cannot be ignored at this prima
facie stage. I need to mention here that already the account statements,
the necessary documents, the memorandum of understanding as well
as the promissory note are seized during investigation and are there on
record alongwith the charge-sheet. As such the question f further
recovery is not there.
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
picture. Further, the accused also appear to be resident of Mumbai,
question of their abscondance does not arise. Hence, in such
..4/-
-- 3 of 4 --
-- 4 -- C.C.NO.830/PW/2025
Bail Order
circumstances I have no hesitation to allow the bail application. Hence,
the order.
O R D E R
1. Accused 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 --