Allowed

Bhalchandra Mahadeo Yelpale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Mar 2010APPLN/1128/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench disposed of two criminal applications by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, granting anticipatory bail to applicants accused of alleged fraud in sale deed transactions under various IPC sections, directing release on bond and surety pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in like amount, reporting conditions imposed.

Bhalchandra Mahadeo Yelpale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1128 OF 2010

¶4

Bhalchandra Mahadeo Yelpale...Applicant.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra...Respondent.

¶5

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1189 OF 2010

¶6

Shri. Vasant Santram Ghadage...Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent.

¶7

Mr. A.P.Mundergi i/by A.A.Joshi for the Applicant.
Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP. For the State.

¶8

Mr.A.P.Mundergi i/by P.B. Kulkarni for the
Applicant in Application No.1189/2010.

¶9

Smt.A.A.Mane,APP. For the State in Application No.
1189/2010.

¶10

 CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
 DATE : 26th March, 2010

¶11

PC :

¶12

1 Both these applications can be disposed off

¶13

by common order as the allegations against both the
applicants are similar. The applicants are shown by

¶14

¶15

the police as an accused in C.R.No.22/2010
registered by Sangola Police Station for alleged
offencesunderSection-120B,
481,419,420,463,465,467,471,472,474 read with 34 of
the I.P.C.Complaint has been lodged by one Uttam

¶16

P. Pawar and according to him land bearing survey
No.166/9/2 from Village Sangola has been
fraudulently sold by fake sellers. One of the sale
deed was executed on 29.12.2009. The present
applicants are purchasers. It has been found in the
investigation that in the registered sale deeds
the photographs of some labourers by names Mr. and
Mrs. Dange have been affixed. Even assuming that
this is so, the present applicants are the real
victims because they have parted monies to the
landlords who are not the real owners. It appears
that the Investigating Officer has recorded the
statements of Dange family as regards their
status. The purchasers have not make any enquiry
before executing the document. This act amount to
negligence on the part of the purchasers. In my

¶17

¶18

view, therefore, the applicants are entitled for
anticipatory bail. It is therefore, directed that
in the event of their arrest in C.R. No.22/2010 by
Sangola Police Station, the applicants may be
released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each
with one surety each in the like amount subject to
the condition that they will report to the I.O.
between 11.00 and 5.00 p.m. on 5.4.2010 and
6.4.2010 and thereafter as and when called by the
Investigating officer in writing. They will also
remain present on all the dates of the case in the
trial court unless exempted. Both the applications

¶19

are disposed off.

¶20

( R.S. MOHITE, J.)

Bhalchandra Mahadeo Yelpale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhalchandra Mahadeo Yelpale 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

Abhiman Sarjerao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Bhaskar Kashid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Riyaz Ayyaz Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Bapu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Sahebrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Balkrishna Bhise and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra