Allowed

Jaipal Parshuram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2008APPLN/27/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant in a cheating case. The court held that evidence regarding payment was lacking, the maximum punishment was seven years, and the claim of political influence was unsupported by material.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties of like amount, subject to non-interference and weekly attendance.

Jaipal Parshuram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

mpt

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 27 of 2008

¶6

 Jaipal Parshuram Patil .. Applicant

¶7

 versus

¶8

 State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

 Mr.Shreekant V. Gavand for the applicant.

¶10

 Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State.

¶11

 CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J

¶12

 DATED : 7th February 2008

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 1. Heard.

¶15

 2. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in
 connection with offence registered at Mandva police
 station under C.R. No.40 of 2007 for alleged offence
 punishable u/s.417 and 420 of the IPC.

¶16

 3. The prosecution case in sort is that the

¶17

¶18

 applicant offered to give employment in GAIL (a
 public sector company) to the nephew of the
 complainant (First Informant) by receiving from the
 complainant Rs.40,000/-. Though the complainant paid
 Rs.40,000/- to the applicant, he did not give the
 employment to the nephew of the complainant as
 promised. Thereafter he returned Rs.10,000/- out of
 Rs.40,000/- but did not return the balance and
 thereby committed an offence. The complainant
 further alleged that the applicant had similarly
 deceived many other persons. No material is placed
 on record to show that the applicant paid Rs.40,000/-
 to the applicant for giving the employment. In fact,
 in the complaint he has stated that the complainant
 and several other persons had similarly effected
 money to him but they did not have any evidence
 regarding payment of any money to the applicant.

¶19

 3. The offence alleged is not punishable with
 death or Imprisonment for life but is punishable with
 imprisonment for a maximum period of 7 years.

¶20

 4. Taking into consideration the maximum
 punishment that can be awarded if the ofence is
 proved and also taking into consideration the fact
 that the complainant himself has stated that he does
 not have any evidence regarding payment of money to

¶21

¶22

 the applicant, the applicant is entitled to a bail.

¶23

 5. The complainant had previously filed an
 application before the Sessions Judge which was
 rejected vide order dated 26th December 2007. Two
 reasons were given by the learned Sessions Judge viz.
 if the applicant is released on bail it would be

¶24

 difficult for the Investigating Officer to

¶25

 investigate the offence and secondly it was stated
 that applicant was politically influenced person and
 he will obstruct in the investigation if he is
 enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the basis of mere
 allegation that the applicant is politically
 connected, it cannot be inferred that the applicant
 would interfere with the investigation in the absence

¶26

 of any material to that effect being placed on
 record. No apprehension was expressed before me by
 the learned APP that applicant would interfere with
 the investigation in the event he is released on
 bail.

¶27

 6. In the circumstances, I pass the following

¶28

 order:-

¶29

 O R D E R

¶30

 . In the event of arrest of the applicant, he

¶31

¶32

 shall be released on bail on personal bond of
 Rs.50,000/- with one surety or two sureties of the
 like amount of Rs.50,000/- subject to the condition
 that the applicant shall not interfere with the
 investigation in any manner and shall attend the
 concerned police station once a week on every Monday
 between 10.00 am and 12 noon initially for a period
 of four weeks and thereafter on such other date on
 which he may be specifically summoned for
 investigation/ interrogation.

¶33

 . This order shall come to an end after

¶34

 charge-sheet is filed whereupon the applicant, if he
 so desires, may apply to the appropriate court for
 regular bail. If such an application is made it
 shall be considered by the court on its own merits
 without being in any way influenced by any of the
 observations made in this application which are only
 prima facie.

¶35

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Jaipal Parshuram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipal Parshuram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Bhimrao Dhope Vs Rekha Ashok Mane and Anr.

Natha Bhau Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pandurang Laxman Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Motiram Zole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Shaligram Tayed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hidaittulla @ Tulla Gaffoor Sayyed and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra