[COURT]

[MATTER NATURE & NO + YEAR]

CAUSE TITLE

A …PETITIONER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT ETC

ADDRESS

VS

B …RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY/DEFENDANT

ADDRESS/POLICE STATION]

[TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES

OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT]

[HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT

ABOVE NAMED]

[MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH]

- WHO IS THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT

- WHO ARE THE RESPONDENTS

- WHY IS THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT

APPROACHING THIS HON’BLE COURT

- JUDICIAL ORDER/ EXECUTIVE ORDER OR ORIGINAL

JURISDICTION

- CASE OF PROSECUTION/ FACTS TILL NOW

- WHAT ARE WE AGGRIEVED BY

- APPROACHING THIS COURT ON GROUNDS

 [GROUNDS]

- [TECHNICAL PARAGRAPHS]

- NO OTHER MATTER OF A SIMILAR NATURE IS FILED IN THIS

HON’BLE COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT IN INDIA

- LIMITATION

- JURISDICTION

[PRAYER]

VERIFICATION

I, , Age: , the Applicant above named

do hereby state on solemn affirmation that whatever is stated in paragraph No.

1 to ___ is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and whatever is stated

in paragraph numbers a to ___ are legal submissions and I believe the same to

be true and correct

Mumbai

dated this __ day of February 2019

Advocate for the Applicant.

 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
COURT AT BORIVALI
[Link]. 625/2018 OF DAHISAR P.S

SHIVAM SUSHIL MISHRA @ MONU )…APPLICANT

V/s.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )…COMPLAINANT

AN APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
THE APPLICANT FOR BAIL U/s.437
OF Cr.P.C.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:-

1. The applicant above named has been arrested by the police in the

above mentioned crime. The applicant was presented before this

Hon’ble Court, who on perusing the FIR was pleased to remand

him, initially to the police custody. Thereafter, the applicant was

remanded to the magisterial custody till today.

2. The applicant therefore, prays for his release on bail on the

following amongst the other grounds:-

GROUNDS

i.) The applicant is innocent, has committed no crime, as

alleged by the complainant. The applicant has been

falsely implicated in the crime on suspicion and ulterior

motive;

ii.) The applicant is not concerned with the alleged offence.

The applicant state that there are no specific allegations

against him;

iii.) That the recovery of the allegedly stolen vehicle has also

taken place by the investigative agency.

 iv.) That the recovery of the said vehicle is at the instance of

the Accused Garfield.

v.) The applicant is permanent resident of given address

and he is not likely to abscond, if released on bail;

vi.) The applicant is not likely to tamper either the evidence

and/or witnesses of the prosecution;

vii.) The applicant undertakes to abide with the terms and

further to co-operate with the police for the purpose of

investigation;

3. The applicant craves leave from this Hon’ble Court to add, alter

and/or amend any of the grounds hereinabove mentioned.

4. The applicant, therefore, most respectfully prays that:-

A] The application may be admitted;

B] Your Honour may be pleased to enlarge the applicant on

bail on such terms and conditions that your honour may deem

fit & proper.

AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS & FAVOUR THE

APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Dated at Mumbai this day of December, 2018

Filed in Court
On: - /12/2018 Advocate for the applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2019

DISTRICT : (RATNAGIRI)

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 389 OF CODE

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER DATED

05/01/2019 PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT IN

SPECIAL CASE NO. 09/2017

SANTOSH DHONDIRAM KENDE )

Age about : 29 years, Occupation : Farmer )

R/o: Ambavali, Bhingarwadi, Tal : Khed ) . . . APPLICANT

Versus

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENTS

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND THE HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF

THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT

HUMBLE APPLICATION FOR BAIL OF

THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

1. The applicant is law abiding and peace loving citizen residing at the

address mentioned in the clause title.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 05/01/2019

passed by Special Court at Ratnagiri in Special Case No. 09/2017

the Applicant herein has approached this Honourable Court under

Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure by way of an appeal.

The Applicant states that vide impugned order the Learned Judge

was pleased to convict the applicant herein for having committed

offence punishable u/s 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 4,6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

and was pleased to sentence the applicant herein to undergo

Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 for each

 offence and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.

Hereto Marked and annexed as EXHIBIT “ A” copy of Judgment

dated 05/01/2019.

3. The prosecution case as is alleged against the present applicant is as

under:-

a) It is alleged that the Complainant that she was 16 years of age

in April of 2016. It is further alleged that in April of 2016 she

had taken her cattle for grazing away from her house at about

10 a.m.

b) The Complainant alleges that the Applicant also followed her

with his own cattle. It is then alleged that the Applicant took

the Complainant in the bushes by using the threat of his

sickle. The Applicant then tied the hands of the Complainant

with a rope and disrobed the Complainant. The Applicant

then had forcible sexual intercourse with the Complainant.

c) It is then alleged that the Applicant threatened the

Complainant that he would kill her and her family and hence

the Complainant did not inform anyone about the incident.

d) It is thereafter alleged that the Applicant raped the

Complainant 2-3 times when she would take her cattle for

grazing.

e) On 23/01/2017 the Complainants mother realized that the

Complainant had not had her regular menstrual period and

therefore took her to the doctor. On being examined by a

medical professional the Complainant was informed that she

was 8 months pregnant. The mother of the Complainant asked

 her who got her pregnant at which point the Complainant

revealed the entire incident to her mother.

f) That on 28/01/2017 a meeting took place in the village of the

complainant where it was discussed as to what steps are to be

taken in respect of the Complainants pregnancy at the hands

of the Applicant. However the Applicant did not attend the

said meeting despite being called.

g) Thereafter the Complainant gave a complaint to the Khed

Police Station who lodged an FIR on the basis of the

Complainants statement on 28/01/2017 bearing FIR number

18/2017 u/s 376, 506 of the IPC and sections 3,4 and 12 of

the POCSO Act. Thereafter on 31/01/2017 the Complainant

gave birth to a child.

4. After completion of investigation the chargesheet was filed with the

special court. The charge came to be framed against the accused and

the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. After examining 14 witnesses for the prosecution and after hearing

the prosecution as well as the advocate for that Accused/Applicant,

that learned Judge was pleased to come to the conclusion that the

applicant has committed the offence as alleged aforesaid and was

further pleased to convict the applicant herein.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same the applicant herein

prefers the present Bail pending his appeal and Suspension of his

sentence on the grounds mentioned herein below:-

GROUNDS
(a) Thus the order of the Learned Judge is bad in law, perverse and

suffers from patent illegality. That the said order is neither tenable

nor acceptable within the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

(b) That the Ld. Special court has miserably failed to appreciate the

evidence and record. Similarly the Ld. Judge has not taken into

account the lack of evidence and witnesses on part of the prosecution

in the present case.

(c) The Ld. Special Judge has fairly admitted that the case of the

Complainant is not completely reliable as it appears that the sexual

activity alleged appears to be consensual rather than forced.

(d) Therefore the Ld. Special Judge has admittedly thrown out the

version put forward by the prosecution in respect of the alleged

incident of Rape. Therefore the case of the prosecution falls flat on

its face since there appears to be no other eye witness testimony or

medical evidence that corroborates or even creates the possibility of

a sexual encounter between the Complainant and the Applicant

herein.

(e) Furthermore the Complainant herself states that the incident of rape

was continuous for 4 months taking place continuously on each day

of those 4 months. Therefore this improvement of the Complainant

itself would be sufficient to disregard the entire evidence of the

Complainant as questionable.

(f) Similarly the Complainant has never complained about the alleged

incident of rape to any individual prior to January 2018 despite the

so called rape taking place in April of 2017. That only after her

mother realized that the Complainant was pregnant with a child did

the Complainant narrate a so called story explaining her

 predicament. It is submitted that the said narration has never been

corroborated in material particulars or even eye witness testimony

throughout the trial.

(g) That even the age of the Complainant has not been established as

being below 18 at the time of the incident throughout the entire trial.

That the mother of the Complainant has admitted that she is unaware

as to the exact date and year of the birth of the Complainant. The

mother of the Complainant admits that the father of the complainant

had passed away 17 years prior to the trial. She has further deposed

that she is not sure if the Complainant was born a year after her

second son which would therefore create the possibility of the

Complainant of being more than 21 years of age. So also the mother

of the Complainant is 60 years of age at the time of the incident and

therefore the balance of probability would be in favour of the

Applicant in holding that the Complainant is not a minor.

(h) That the Ld. Special Judge has remarked in the judgment that the

village register of births is carelessly maintained. Therefore it is

submitted that the same cannot be relied upon to ascertain the age of

the Complainant. Similarly the school leaving certificate and other

such documents are insufficient to positively hold that the age of the

Complainant is that of a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

(i) The Applicant submits that since the eyewitness testimony is either

unreliable or not forthcoming, the Ld. Special Judge has relied upon

a DNA analysis that alleges that the Applicant is the father of the

Complainant. However, the Chain of custody of the blood vials and

DNA kit has not been established by the prosecution. The persons
 responsible for drawing the sample or collecting the same from the

medical officer are not established.

(j) Similarly no document or panchanama has been put forth during the

trial to show the marking of the Vials or DNA kit so as to ascertain

which kit belonged to which of the 3 individuals. Similarly the entire

trial does not establish that the DNA kits were sealed at the time of

drawing of the samples from the 3 individuals that is the

Complainant, her child and the Applicant. Neither is there any

evidence forthcoming to show that the samples being opened for

testing are in the same condition as they were at the time of the

sealing and marking.

(k) Furthermore no report as contemplated under section 53 has been

put forth at the trial so as to prove that the samples were even taken

from the Applicant Accused.

(l) Therefore the weight of evidence would go to show that the case of

the prosecution is unable to stand the test of reliability or even

probability to bring home the conviction of the Applicant.

(m) That the order passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Ratnagiri, is

arbitrary, unjust, bad in law and against the principles of natural

justice. The finding of the Ld. Judge that the Applicant herein has

committed the aforesaid offence is not based on sound reasoning and

suffers from the vice of improper application of judicious mind.

(n) The Ld. Judge erred in law by appreciating the evidence favoring the

prosecution and by ignoring the evidence supporting the Applicants,

which in fact establishes the innocence of the Applicants herein.

(o) That Ld. Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record as well as

facts governing the case. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that the
 evidence of all the witnesses suffers from material contradictions

and omissions and therefore the same cannot be relied upon.

(p) The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that the accused has discharged

his burden of proving his innocence by all the probabilities and

possibilities and the case of the accused more trustworthy than that

of the prosecution.

(q) That the Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that no independent witnesses

although were available, were examined by the prosecution.

(r) It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution witnesses have

supported the case of the defense.

7. The Applicant submits that in the event of his being released on bail,

pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal by this Hon’ble

Court, the Applicant shall abide by the terms and conditions, which

will be imposed upon them by this Hon’ble Court.

8. The Applicant states that the Applicant has not preferred any other

appeal, application or petition in respect of the present subject matter

before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court in India.

9. The verification of the Applicant may be dispensed with by this

Hon'ble Court since the Applicant is in Judicial Custody.

10. The applicant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of the

appeal if so required with the prior permission of this Hon’ble High

court

11. The Applicant, therefore, prays:

(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for record and

proceedings in respect of Special Case No. 09/2017 before the Ld.

Special Court at Ratnagiri.

(B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal,

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence of the

Appellant in Special Case No. 09/2017 before the Ld. Special Court

at Ratnagiri.

(C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal,

this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to release the Appellant on bail

herein thereby releasing the appellant on bail in Special Case No.

09/2017 before the Ld. Special Court at Ratnagiri on such terms and

conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;

(D) ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C) may be

granted;

Mumbai

Dated this day of January, 2019

Advocate for the Applicant

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

CRI. BAIL APPLN. NO. /2019

Santosh Kende .... Applicant

V/s

The State .… Respondents

--------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL BAIL IN APPEAL

-----------------------------------------------
Dated this

HARSHAWARDHAN SALGAOKAR
Advocates
120, COMMERCE HOUSE,
N.M ROAD, KALA GHODA,
FORT, MUMBAI -23
Email:- hsalgaokar@[Link]

Adv Code - I 10966

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION OF 2019

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2019

Santosh Dhondiram Kende .... Applicant

V/s

The State of Maharashtra … Respondents

INDEX

Sr. No. Particular Page No.

1. Proforma

2. Memo of Application

3. Exhibit-A

Copy of Judgment and Order dated 05/01/2019

Last Page -
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2019

SANTOSH DHONDIRAM KENDE ... APPELLANT

V/S

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS

Date Event

April 2016 It is alleged that in April of 2016 the Complainant who was allegedly

a minor had taken her cattle for grazing away from her house at about

10 a.m. The Complainant alleges that the Appellant also followed her

with his own cattle. It is then alleged that the Appellant took the

Complainant in the bushes by using the threat of his sickle. The

Appellant then tied the hands of the Complainant with a rope and

disrobed the Complainant. The Appellant then had forcible sexual

intercourse with the Complainant. It is then alleged that the Appellant

threatened the Complainant.

28/01/2017 The Complainant was found to be pregnant and an FIR was lodged

with Khed Police Station. Investigation is completed and the

Chargesheet is filed thereafter.

05/01/2019 The Appellant is convicted by the Ld. Special Judge at Khed

Last Page -
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2017

( FOR REGULAR BAIL )

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 439

OF CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE

AND

IN THE MATTER OF [Link]. I-

57/16 OF 2016 REGISTERED BY

NAUPADA POLICE STATION

MR. AKASH DEEPAK PATIL

R/AT 302, CHATRAPATI C.H.S.

PAWAR NAGAR, THANE (W)

. . . APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

( AT THE INSTANCE OF NAUPADA POLICE

STATION IN [Link]. I-57/16)

. . . RESPONDENT
TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES

OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT.

APPLICATION FOR BAIL U/S 439 OF CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR: -

1. The applicant is law-abiding and peace loving citizen residing

permanently at the address mentioned in the cause title.

2. The applicant is approaching this Hon’ble Court u/s 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking bail in respect of [Link]. I-57/16

registered by the Respondent Police Station dated 26/02/2016. The

Applicant most respectfully submits that CR No. I-57/2016 was

registered by respondent police station under section 406, 420, 465,

467, 468, 471, 120 B of Indian Penal code and section 3 and 5 of

MPID Act 1999 against directors of Rupershri consultancy 1) Shreel

Madan and 2) Mrs. Aparna Karnik. The applicant came to be

arrested on 30/09/2016 by crime branch, than and was produced

before the Hon’ble Court. At present the applicant is in magisterial

custody.

3. The prosecution Case in nutshell is that accused No. 1 and 2

directors of Rupashri consultancy committed offences of cheating

public at large by inviting deposits. It is the Case of the prosecution

 that accused No. 1 and 2 formed a financial company and induced

investors to keep deposits with the company at a higher and

impossible return of interest and thus committed cheating of Rs.

10,27,20,410/-. It is alleged that the present applicant was working

as commission agent in the company and has received certain

amount as and by way of commission for inducing various investors.

In this connection the applicant was arrested and investigation was

completed and charge sheet came to be filed.

4. The applicant initially preferred an application for bail before filing

of chargesheet and the same came to be rejected vide order dated

21/11/2016 by the Hon’ble sessions Court at Thane. Hereto marked

and annexed as EXHIBIT A is the copy of the application and order

passed thereon rejecting the application for bail of the present

applicant.

5. That thereafter chargesheet came to be filed and the investigation

was completed, therefore the Applicant filed an Application seeking

Bail before the Ld. Court of Sessions at Thane. That after hearing

the Applicant and the present Respondent, the Ld. Sessions Court

was pleased to reject the Application vide order dated 14/06/2017.

Hereto marked and annexed as EXHIBIT B is the copy of the Bail

Application and order dated 14/06/2017 of the Ld. Sessions Court.

Hereto marked and annexed as EXHIBIT C is the copy of the

Chargesheet.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Ld. Sessions Order

dated 14/06/2017 passed by the Hon`ble Sessions Court rejecting the

Bail Application of the Applicant, the present Bail Application is

presented on behalf of the Applicant on the following grounds which are

stated without prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS

A) That the applicant is an innocent person and is falsely implicated in

the present Case.

B) That now custodial interrogation of applicant is not necessary as the

investigation is complete and further detention of applicant in

magistrate custody will amount to pre-trial conviction and therefore

applicant deserves to be released on bail.

C) Admittedly the applicant has acted as an agent of a company even as

per prosecution. The applicant was not aware about the malafide

intentions of accused No. 1 and 2.

D) That the Ld. Sessions Court in its order rejecting Bail has also prima

facie accepted the Applicants contention that his role only extends to

be being a Commission agent. That the Applicant has not been

named as a conspirator or beneficiary of the alleged crime.

E) At base the applicant can be treated as a witness at par with other

agents who have also received commission and are cited as witness

is in the present Case.

F) It is submitted that nothing is discovered from the applicant

implicating the applicant with the alleged offence.

G) It is submitted that accused No. 1 and 2 are arrested in the present

Case and their statement came to be recorded. In the statement dated

6/03/2016 accused No. 2 has mentioned that an amount of Rs. 10

Lacs was paid to the present applicant. That is the only role

attributed to the applicant. It is most respectfully submitted that it is

evident on record that other 13 agents were paid more than 2 crores

as and by way of commission however they are not named as an

accused and the present applicant claims parity with them.

H) It is pertinent to note here that in the entire chargesheet there is no

whisper about the present applicant there is no evidence on record to

show that present applicant is likely to dispose of attempted to

dispose of any property.

I) It can be seen from the statement of the Jayashri Kashid, that she

knew accused No. 1 and she asked her relatives to invest in the firm

and not the present applicant. On perusal of statement of her

relatives that is one Mr. Ramdas Vakhare, Ganesh Raut, it is their

Case that they have invested in the company based on the

representation done by Jayashri Kashid. Similarly Suvarna Sawant

has invested in the company on the basis of representations made by

a person known to Mr Abhay Dharap. Similarly witnesses Waman

Tawade and Vidya Panshikar, Gauri Kulkarni have invested in the

company on the basis of representations made by person named

Shriram Joshi.
J) It would be pertinent to note the statements recorded of one Mr

Krishna Thapa, Santosh Sakharkar, Sandip Mahadik. They are silent

about the role played by the present applicant. It would not be out of

context to mention here that they are workers of the accused

company and still there are not naming the present applicant at initial

stage. Their additional statements are recorded subsequently. It is

submitted that in the statement of one Mr. Ashok Pawar, Sandip

Mahadik name of the applicant is mentioned. On careful reading of

the said statement it can be seen that it is the accused No. 1 and 2

who induced the applicant and other agents to bring the investors for

the company. However it is respectfully submitted that the present

applicant was unaware about the motive of accused No. 1 and 2. It is

also important to note that all these witnesses have named other

persons as well however they are not arrested or made as an accused.

K) On perusal of statement of Mr Ramesh Kulkarni it can be seen that

he has invested in the company on the basis of representations made

by another agent Mr Abhay Dharap however the prosecution had

chosen not to make him as an accused. On perusal of statement of

Shri Kishor Shinagare it can be seen that investment is made on the

basis of representations made by one Mr. Mayuresh Dolas.

L) It is submitted that during investigation account of the present

applicant came to be seized. It can be seen from the said statement

that the applicant has received certain amount as and by way of

commission. What is pertinent to note here is that the applicant was

 working with Aviva life insurance and was getting 11,20,000 as

salary. There after the applicant got introduced to accused No. 1 who

in turn informed the present applicant that on an investment of

rupees one lacks he will get 3 to 4% return. Accused No. 1 further

offered him job in his company and promised him similar salary and

commission. As a matter of record the present applicant has received

Rs. 10 Lacs towards salary and commission in period of one-year.

During investigation the accused has produced his bank statements

to show that he has received salary/commission. What is pertinent to

note here is that the accused never shared the same intentions as that

of accused No. 1 and 2 and further is not benefited from the illegal

acts of accused No. 1 and 2 save and except receiving his

salary/commission in such circumstances the accused himself is

victim of misrepresentations made by accused No. 1 and 2.

M) The Applicant states that the said offence is of documentary in

nature and all the documents seized and in possession of the police

and nothing has to be recovered from the Applicant.

N) The accused hails from reputed family and is further detention in the

present Case is not necessary.

6. in the circumstances if the accused/Applicant is released on bail on

such terms and conditions the accused will abide by the same

7. The accused is not likely to hamper or tamper with the investigation

as the investigation is complete

8. Custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant is not necessary as

the investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed.

9. In the circumstances mentioned herein above it is most

respectfully prayed that;

A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to release the applicant

on bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems

fit and proper in respect of CR No. I-57/16 registered by

Naupada Police Station under section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468,

471, 120 (b) of Indian Penal code and section 3 and 5 of MP ID

Act.

B. any further and other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and

proper in the interest of Justice

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT SHALL

REMAIN DUTY BOUND AS EVER PRAYED:

Mumbai

Dated ___ day of June 2017

Advocate for the Applicant.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2017

MR. AKASH DEEPAK PATIL …APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENTS

INDEX

[Link]. PARTICULARS PAGE NO

1. SYNOPSIS

2. MEMO OF APPICATION

3. EXHIBIT “A” copy of the application and

order passed thereon rejecting the application

for bail of the present applicant

4. EXHIBIT “B” copy of the Bail Application

and order dated 14/06/2017

5. EXHIBIT “C” copy of the Chargesheet

LAST PAGE:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2017

MR. AKASH DEEPAK PATIL …APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENTS

SYNOPYSIS

Dates Events

20/02/2016 CR No. I-57/2016 was registered by respondent police

station under section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 B
of Indian Penal code and section 3 and 5 of MPID Act
1999 against directors of Rupershri consultancy 1) Shreel
Madan and 2) Mrs. Aparna Karnik.

30/09/2016 The applicant came to be arrested by the crime branch.

21/11/2016 The applicant initially preferred an application for bail

before filing of chargesheet and the same came to be
rejected vide order dated 21/11/2016 by the Hon’ble
sessions Court at Thane.

That thereafter the chargesheet in respect of the said C.R.

came to be filed and the investigation was completed.

14/06/2017 The Applicant filed an Application seeking Bail before the

Ld. Court of Sessions at Thane. That the Ld. Sessions
Court was pleased to reject the Application vide order
dated 14/06/2017.

Hence present Application for regular bail on the grounds

 mentioned in the Application.

ACTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE

2. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

3. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

POINTS TO BE URUGED

1. Whether prima facie case is made out against the Applicant u/s 406,

420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of Indian Penal code and section 3

and 5 of MPID Act 1999?

2. Whether custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary?

3. What Order?

Advocate for Applicant

IN THE HIGH COURT ATBOMBAY

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION

NO. OF 2017

MR. AKASH DEEPAK PATIL

…APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

…RESPONDENTS

CRIMINAL APPLICATION BAIL.

Dated _______JUNE 2017

HARSHAD BHADBHADE

120, COMMERCE HOUSE,

NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD. FORT,
MUMBAI 23

HARSHADVB@[Link]

9820300135