Allowed

Ravan Maroti Jamadar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Jan 2011APPLN/4921/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an application for anticipatory bail filed by a Police Patil accused of fraudulently availing a government Below Poverty Line scheme. The court held that his official status did not disqualify him from bail and granted release on bond with a condition to deposit the misappropriated amount.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail furnishing a PR bond and surety of Rs. 10,000/- and depositing Rs. 28,500/- with the Government by 28th Feb, 2011.

Ravan Maroti Jamadar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

CR.APLN.NO.4921/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4921 OF 2010

¶5

Ravan Maroti Jamadar,

¶6

...APPLICANT.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

...

¶11

Mr.M.L.Dharashive, Adv., h/f Mr.Prashant
Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant.

¶12

Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State.

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶15

 DATE:7/1/2011

¶16

***

¶17

PER COURT :

¶18

1.Heard learned Counsel. The

¶19

accused/applicant, a Police Patil at the relevant
time, moved application, to be eligible to enjoy
schemes of the Government for Below Poverty Line.
He informed that his income is below Rs.20,000/-.
The inquiry illustrated that though the
remuneration or the honorarium of the accused
applicant Police Patil was Rs.800/-p.m.,
however, his wife was in service as Anganwadi
Sevika and collecting honorarium from the State.

¶20

2 CR.APLN.NO.4921/2010

¶21

Thus, the authorities found that the income of
the accused/applicant is not earmarked below the
poverty line as per the Government Scheme. By
producingincorrectcertificate,the

¶22

accused/applicant has, allegedly, availed Rs.
28,500/- from the Government Exchequer under
Village Employment Scheme ( Gramin Rojgar
Yojana), Scheme I.

¶23

2.Custodialinterrogationofthe
accused/applicant in the set of above facts, is
not desirable. Though the accused/applicant, as
a Police Patil, should have been scrupulous in
discharging his duties, however, by that itself
would not be dis-entitling him for the discretion
under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(a)The accused/applicant, in the event of
his arrest in Crime No.146/2010 registered at
Omerga Police Station, be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. bond and surety in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand).

¶26

(b)The accused/applicant shall deposit an
amount of Rs.28,500/- (Rs. twenty eight thousand,
five hundred) with the Government and produce the
receipt to the investigator upto 28th Feb.,2011.
If the accused applicant fails to deposit the

¶27

3 CR.APLN.NO.4921/2010

¶28

amount of Rs.28,500/- upto 28th Feb.,2011, the
protection granted shall automatically stand
terminated.

¶29

Application allowed to the extent as

¶30

above.

¶31

(K.U.CHANDIWAL)

¶32

 JUDGE

¶33

agp/4921-10crapl

Ravan Maroti Jamadar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravan Maroti Jamadar 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

Sadashiv Vitthalrao Ambhore Vs Arunabai Sadashiv Ambhore and Others

Arjun Sadashiv Kale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Arunabai Sadashiv Ambhore and Ors. Vs Sadashiv Vitthalrao Ambhore and Ors.

The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchants Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vithal Gulabrao Maske Vs Hanuman Shrihari Yeole and Ors.

Sambhaji Kirba Bhandare and Ors. Vs Vykanti Kmariba Boyal and Anr.