Dismissed

The State of Mah v. Laxmikant Rangnathrao Kulkarni and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2012APPLN/2860/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State filed three criminal applications seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents accused of cheating and forgery. The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that the Sessions Judge exercised discretion properly and there was no shocking material to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Criminal applications 2860, 2861, and 2862 of 2012 for cancellation of anticipatory bail were dismissed.

The State of Mah Vs Laxmikant Rangnathrao Kulkarni and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. 2860-2012+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2860 OF 2012

¶4

The State of Maharashtra

¶5

through Police Station, MIDC, Latur

¶6

 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Laxmikant Rangnathrao Kulkarni

¶9

2. Sudam S/o Vithalrao Kulkarni Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2861 OF 2012

¶12

The State of Maharashtra
through Police Station, MIDC, Latur Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

1. Vivek S/o Shankarrao Deshpande

¶15

2. Arun S/o Vasantrao Deshpande Respondents

¶16

AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2862 OF 2012

¶17

The State of Maharashtra
through Police Station, MIDC, Latur Applicant

¶18

Versus

¶19

Pramod S/o Jagannath ShetakeRespondent

¶20

Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for Applicant-State in all Applications

¶21

Mr. M.B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 (Cri.Appln.
2860 of 2012).

¶22

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. V.Y. Deshmukh, and Mr. L.V.
Sangit, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 (Cri. Appln.2861.2012).

¶23

Mr. E.P. Savant, Advocate for the respondent (Cri.Appln. 2862.2012)

¶24

CORAM : M. T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 03^RD OCTOBER, 2012

¶25

ORAL ORDER:

¶26

1. Heard both sides.

¶27

2. Aggrieved by the order of releasing the present

¶28

(2) Cri. Appln. 2860-2012+

¶29

respondents in all the three Applications in crime no.58
of 2012 registered with MIDC Police Station, Latur for the
offences punishable under section 420, 468, 471, r/w. 34
of the Indian Penal Code, the present Applications for
cancellation of bail are filed by the State.

¶30

3.The allegations against the present applicants
are that while working in a construction company at
Aurangabad, they used to forge documents in order to show
payment of certain royalty amount towards the excavation

¶31

of minor minerals while one of the accused being Executive
Engineer of M.I.D.C. has helped them. Though there was
prima facie material to show that stamps of Government
were forged, the learned A.P.P submits that the learned
Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the
respondents, merely because in view of the learned
Sessions Judge, custodial interrogation of the applicants
would not be necessary. He submits that taking into
consideration the seriousness of the offence that there
was forgery of the Government stamps, in order to show
that royalty was paid, the anticipatory bail ought not
have been granted.

¶32

4.Learned counsel for the respondents however
supports the order. They submits that the learned Judge

¶33

has rightly passed the order, upon taking into

¶34

(3) Cri. Appln. 2860-2012+

¶35

consideration all material on record, reasoned order is
passed. Further, the order was passed on 11.4.2012.
Thereafter, there is no complaint of misusing the
releasing of the applicants on bail. Even certain
conditions those were imposed at the time of grant of
anticipatory bail are now relaxed. In the circumstances,
they submit that the Applications be dismissed.

¶36

5.Unless and until there is shocking material to
show that the learned Judge has not exercised his
discretion for grant of anticipatory bail and unless and
until the Court finds that the nature of offence is very
serious one, the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge in his discretion cannot be tinkered with merely

¶37

because another view is possible. The order of the
learned Sessions Judge would show that the learned
Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the principles
which are required to be borne in mind at the time of
grant or refusal of the anticipatory bail. The issue as
to whether custodial interrogation is required or not, is
also considered by the learned Sessions Judge. In the
circumstances, in my view, there is no reason to interfere
in the order. In the result, the Applications are
dismissed.

¶38

arp/

The State of Mah v. Laxmikant Rangnathrao Kulkarni and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Laxmikant Rangnathrao Kulkarni and Anr.

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

Dr. Shrihari Limbaji Lahane Vs the State of Mah

Shrihari Limbaji Lahane Vs the State of Mah

Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shivdatt Laxman Dhas Vs Shashikant Pandurang Patil and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Vivek Shankarrao Deshpande and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Pramod Jagannath Shetake