1 Cri. Bail Appln. No.

4586/2024

ORDER IN CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO.4586/2024

(CNR NO.MHPU01-012339-2024)

Adil Anwar Khan and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

1. Applicants namely Adil Anwar Khan and Rayyan Mohd

Arshad Shaikh have preferred present application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C., for seeking regular bail concern with C.R.
No.282/2024, registered with Sangavi Police Station, in respect of
offence punishable under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 66(d) of the I.T. Act 2000.

2. Fact of prosecution case is that, on 3/7/2024 as per the

report of Sudarshan Hajare crime in question registered alleging
that on 25/2/2024 at about 16.42 hours, whatsApp message
received on his cellphone No.8928325344 from cellphone
No.7817943247 and as per that message it was informed to him that
if rating given by him to restaurant on google, he will get Rs.25/- for
each rating. As per that information, telegram App download by
him, its username was Sophiya, thereafter 3 telegram link sent to
him, as per his rating amount of Rs.100/- found sent in his account
standing at Axis Bank, thereafter 3 tasks were offered to him but
against that tasks Rs.75/- never received to him. Again on
26/2/2024 he was directed to join linkendin idea after joining 3
tasks made by him, by using abovesaid mode amount to the tune of
Rs.8695/- shown in his account, thereafter again assurance given to
him for extra profit and compel to him for making prepaid task and
by doing so financial cheating to the tune of Rs.7,40,405/- caused
 2 Cri. Bail Appln. No.4586/2024

to him. According to informant, by doing abovesaid act offence in

question committed by accused involved in the crime. Hence, his
report.

3. On the basis of report of Sudarshan, crime in question

registered. In FIR, there appears 6 particulars under the caption of
name of accused, in the nature of Paytm, pre recharge, kaxis, AK
Traders A C No, UPI and whatsApp No.7817943247, but name of
accused individual is prima facie absent. In the investigation of
crime, applicants transpired involved in which their status is
reflected as accused Nos.2 and 3. Applicants came to be arrested on
9/7/2024. At present they are in magistrate custody. Bail
application preferred by them before learned Magistrate turn into
rejection as per order dt.23/7/2024. Hence, this application for
seeking regular bail.

4. It is contention of applicants that they are falsely

implicated simply on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-
accused Kanhayya, no direct evidence against them, so called bank
transaction is concern with accused Kanhayya, no prima facie
evidence against them, applicant No. 2 is suffering by medical issue,
they resides at captioned address, no scope of their absconding,
their further detention is unwarranted. By contending so, they
requested for allowing application in question.

5. Prosecution resisted to application by uploading its say

dt.21/9/2024. It is contention of prosecution that offence is in
serious nature and concern with online financial cheating,
applicants and co-accused Kanhayya cheated to informant and
misappropriated of amount, amount involved in the crime yet to be
 3 Cri. Bail Appln. No.4586/2024

seized, amount to the tune of Rs.1,30,00,000/- yet to be recovered

from accused Kanhayya, if relief in question allow in favour of
applicants then they will commit similar offence again, big racket
involved in it, co-accused involved in the crime are yet to be
arrested, investigation is in progress, charge-sheet is yet to be filed.
By contending so, prosecution requested for its rejection.

6. Read application and say. Perused the uploaded

documents on behalf of both parties and investigation papers
placed on record for perusal. Heard counsel for applicants and
learned APP Shri. Javed Khan for State.

7. During the course of argument, counsel for applicants

has submitted that no direct or indirect concern of applicants with
commission of crime, they are falsely implicated simply on suspect,
investigation of crime is already over, even charge-sheet is also
filed, no incriminating recovered at the instance of applicants, their
further detention is unwarranted, prosecution is document base.
By saying so, he requested for allowing application in question. In
support of his submission, he relying on following authorities :

i) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, Hon’ble Supreme Court,

arising out of Cri.Appeal No.1277/2014
ii) Raju Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon’ble Bombay High
Court, arising out of Bail Appln. No.1406/2022
iii) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., Hon’ble Supreme Court,
arising out of Misc. Appln. No.1889/2021 in SLP No.(Crl)
5191 of 2021.
iv) Manoj Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, arising out of Cri. Appeal No.1030/2023
 4 Cri. Bail Appln. No.4586/2024

8. Per contra, learned A.P.P. Shri. Javed Khan has

submitted that offence is in serious nature, offence in question
committed by applicants by making conspiracy with accused
Kanhayya, amount involved in the crime distributed by applicants
and co-accused Kanhayya in between each-others, none of the
amount is recovered, applicants are habitual offenders. He has
further submitted that after completion of investigation charge-
sheet is filed and accordingly RCC No.953/2024 is registered
against applicants. If relief in question allow then there is
possibility of their absconding and if so happen then trial will
hamper. By saying so, he requested for its rejection.

9. Considering the fact of prosecution case, rival

submissions advanced on behalf of both and nature of application
under consideration it is necessary to see, whether further
detention of applicants behind bar is imperative or not. On careful
perusal of FIR, under the caption of particulars of accused, 6
particulars seems to be given in the nature of Paytm account, free
charge etc. but name of applicants is not specifically contended in
it. In say placed on record by prosecution, it is contended that
charge-sheet is yet to be filed, though the fair submission made by
learned APP that charge-sheet is already filed concern with crime.
To confirm that fact, by visiting to CIS, it reflect that concern with
C.R. No.282/2024 registered with Sangavi Police Station charge-
sheet is filed before learned Magistrate and accordingly RCC
No.953/2024 seems to be registered. That fact suggest that after
completion of upto mark investigation charge-sheet concern with
crime is already filed and for the purpose of investigation physical
 5 Cri. Bail Appln. No.4586/2024

detention of applicants is appear to be unwarranted. Hence, I found

substance in the submission of advanced on behalf of learned APP.

10. Ferist concern with investigation papers seems to be

uploaded dt.5/9/2024 in which there appears reference of
statement of ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Punjab National Bank, HDFC
Bank etc. On the basis of contents of ferist it reveals that,
prosecution is based on documentary evidence. Whether applicants
is having concern with that accounts or not that fact touches to the
matter of evidence. Considering the allegations levelled in FIR as
well as materiel collected during the course of investigation in the
nature of account extract, it is inferable that, prosecution is based
on documentary evidence and no scope is available to applicants for
tampering the evidence. Hence, I found substance in the
submission of advanced on behalf of learned counsel for applicants.

11. As discussed above, in FIR name of applicants is absent,

after completion of investigation charge-sheet is already filed,
prosecution is prima facie appears to be document base, no scope is
available to applicants for tampering the evidence of prosecution,
whatever ground put forth by prosecution for refusing relief
appears to be vague and general in nature and are not demonstrate
as to for what purpose detention and detention of applicants behind
bar is imperative in nature. Since from 9/7/2024 applicants are
behind bar. Till today period nearabout 3 months is already over.
As charge-sheet is already filed certainly trial will take its own time.
Basic principle of bail is a rule and jail is a exception. Keep in mind
that principle and by clubbing all abovesaid fact, observations made
 6 Cri. Bail Appln. No.4586/2024

in cited supra cases and materiel placed on record by prosecution

itself, further detention of applicants behind bar do not seems to be
imperative. Consequently case is made out in favour of applicants
for seeking regular bail as requested under application. Hence, this
court incline to allow application in question. As regard
apprehension put forth by learned APP is concern that can be care
by imposing certain conditions on applicants. With this, I proceed
to pass following order.

ORDER

1. Application Exh.1 is hereby allowed.

2. Applicants Adil Anwar Khan and Rayyan Mohd Arshad

Shaikh shall be released on bail on furnishing two solvent
sureties of Rs.75,000/- each and personal bond of like
amount, concern with C.R. No.282/2024, registered with
Sangavi Police Station, for the offence punishable under
Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
66(d) of the I.T. Act 2000.

3. Applicants shall give their attendance at Sangavi Police

Station once in a three month, i.e. first day of month, w.e.f.
1/11/2024 in between 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., till
conclusion of trial.
4. Applicants are directed to maintain diary for taking
acknowledgment of their attendance at police station
coupled with seal and signature of officer in-charge of
police station as directed in order clause-3 and produce
the same before the Court as and when directed to do so.
5. Applicants shall remain present before the Court on each
and every scheduled date without fail and excuse and
report their presence by tendering pursis on record bear
signature of them and their advocate if any.

6. Applicants shall not tamper the evidence of prosecution

and its witnesses in any manner.
 7 Cri. Bail Appln. No.4586/2024

7. Applicants shall give their cellphone numbers and address

proof to investigating officer concern.

8. Compliance of bail order before Magistrate concern.

9. Inform to concern police station accordingly.

Dictated on PC directly, delivered and pronounced in open
Court. Digitally signed by
MOHAN GULABRAO
CHAVAN
Date: 2024.10.09
18:02:58 +0530

(M. G. Chavan)
Dated : 09/10/2024. Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.