SAYYED MASOOD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is the accused in Criminal Case No. 894/PW/2010 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 69th Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai. The case arises out of C.R. No. 205/10 registered at the Nagpada Police Station in respect of offences punishable under sections 406 IPC, 420 IPC and 120B of the IPC, as also offences punishable under sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Price Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978. The applicant was arrested on 28th August 2010. He remained in custody for quite some time. He was released on bail by this Court (Coram R.P. Sondur Baldota, J) by an order dated 12th December 2011. On an application made by the City Group Investors Association of which the First Informant is the President, the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled by this Court (Coram Abhay M. Thipsay, J) by an order dated 13th July 2013. The challenge to the said order as given by the applicant by approaching Supreme Court of India, failed. The applicant was then again taken into custody. It is thereafter that the present application for bail has been moved, seeking bail afresh. The application was taken up for hearing long back, but the hearing thereof was delayed because of the intervention of the City Group Investors Association, who have vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It may be observed that a number of cases are pending against the applicant, and one of them is a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA Special Case No. 1 of 2013). The applicant's application for bail in that case is also pending before this Court (Bail Application No. 1779/13). On the suggestion - or rather the insistence - of the learned counsel for the intervenors i.e. City Group Investors Association, the present application and the said application for bail were heard and considered together. This, undoubtedly, resulted in some delay in disposal of the present Bail Application, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was thought necessary that the question of releasing the applicant on bail in this case should be considered by keeping in mind the pendency of the said Special Case under the PMLA Act against the applicant.

(2.) Though the applications have been heard together, and common arguments were advanced by the intervenors, the nature of allegation in the present case and the Special Case being different, and the questions that would arise for consideration in the Bail Application No. 1779/13 being different, it is thought proper to decide both the Bail Applications by separate orders.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. Janardhanan, the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mrs. S.V. Gajare, the learned APP for the State. I have heard Mr. Mubin Solkar, learned counsel for the Intervenors. I have also taken into consideration the facts of the PMLA Special Case pending against the applicant, and the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecution in the Bail Application No. 1779/13.