Allowed

Ratnagiri Maharaj@Ratan Chindha Patil v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC13 Jul 2012APPLN/2586/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Criminal Application sought release on bail for the accused involved in offences of cheating and magical practices. The court observed that no additional witnesses were needed for the case beyond the complainant and that custody was not imperative.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with P.R. bond and surety of Rs. 15,000/- and to attend the investigator monthly.

Ratnagiri Maharaj@Ratan Chindha Patil Vs the State of Mah — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cran2586.12

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2586 OF 2012

¶5

Ratnagiri Maharaj @ Ratan Chindha Patil ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vijay Sharma, advocate for the applicant Mr. P.N. Mule, APP for respondent

¶7

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶8

DATED : 13TH JULY, 2012

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The accused/applicant has prayed for release on bail in crime No. I-69 of 2012 of Pachora police station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 452, 448, 308, 508, 506, 386 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The accused/applicant is in custody from 19.4.2012 and charge sheet is filed.

¶12

The F.I.R. dated 19.4.2012 of Smt. Rukhmanbai is that she

¶13

cran2586.12

¶14

-2-

¶15

approached the accused/applicant somewhere in March, 2008 for benefit of his so called divine power for enlarging the life span of her husband, who was not keeping well. Her grievance is, she was made to part with considerable sum of Rs.1,70,000/- initially and thereafter exercise of black magic by moving the broom of peacock feathers was ensured. She was again called in April, 2008 at Sangameshwar. The applicant had assured the complainant that he will provide a son of 10 years looking like Navnath Maharaj, who will spread fame of the family in the region and she believed the version and again parted with Rs. 2.00 lacs.

¶16

The learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that from the record, it appears that Deochand, husband survived 110 years of life and he expired on 3.10.2010 and then the questioned F.I.R. is lodged on 19.4.2012.

¶17

Reading the text of entire material, since charge sheet is filed, there is no other case barring N.C. that too at the instance of the complainant Smt. Rukhmanbai, further custody of the applicant is not imperative. It will not create any impasse in the trial.

¶18

Hence, the order:-

¶19

cran2586.12

¶20

a. The accused/applicant Ratnagiri Maharaj @ Ratan Chindha Patil be released on his furnishing P.R. bond and surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only),

¶21

b) The accused/applicant shall attend the investigator on 1^st Sunday of every month between 3.00 to 6.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial. The applicant shall not influence the witnesses.

¶22

( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. )

¶23

rlj/

Ratnagiri Maharaj@Ratan Chindha Patil v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnagiri Maharaj@Ratan Chindha Patil v. the State of Mah

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

Dyanaba Vishramji Dhok Vs the State of Mah

Santosh Chandrakant Nagtilak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ram Laxman Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Arjun Pralhad Shinde Vs the State of Maharasthra

Piraji Vitthal Gaikwad Vs the State of Mah

Mahesh Shivajirao Bagul Vs the State of Mah