Partly allowed

Sudhakar Baliram Khillare and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2012APPLN/3280/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad disposed of two criminal applications for anticipatory bail. Application No.3280 was dismissed citing prima facie evidence of fraud regarding D.R.D. scheme benefits, revoking interim protection. Application No.3116 was allowed after applicants proved they were not officials during the relevant period, making interim protection absolute.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No.3280 of 2012 dismissed and interim protection revoked; Criminal Application No.3116 of 2012 allowed with interim protection made absolute.

Sudhakar Baliram Khillare and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.3280/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3280 OF 2012

¶5

1.	Sudhakar s/o Baliram Khillare
2.	Ashok s/o Ramaji Khillare
3.	Shobha s/o Nivruti Manwatkar
4.	Ramesh s/o Sudama Khillare
5.	Pralhad s/o Ramaji Khillare
6.	Bhaskar s/o Vithoda Khillare
7.	Shravan s/o Vithoba Khillare
8.	Bholenath s/o Parasram Khillare
9.	Bhikaji s/o Laxman Ranbawale
	All Major, Occu.Labour, All r/o Jamthi (Bk), Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli	..	Applicants
	Versus
The	State of Maharashtra and anr.	..	Respondents
Mr	R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for applicants
Mr	D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent-State

¶6

WITH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3116 OF 2012

¶8

1. 2.	Pandarirao s/o Bajirao Sarnaik Samadhan s/o Sampatrao Sapkal	..	Applicants
	Versus
The	State of Maharashtra and anr.	..	Respondents

¶9

Mr R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for applicants Mr D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State Mr Sachin S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶10

Cri.Appln.No.3280/2012

¶11

¶12

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶13

DATE : 22^nd August 2012

¶14

PER COURT

¶15

The present criminal applications for grant of anticipatory bail are filed in the same crime bearing No.43/12, registered with Goregaon Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420, 426, 465, 466, 467, 468 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The complaint in the present case was filed by Anandrao Babhnaji Jadhav, who is present in the Court as the Court had issued notice to him finding that he should be heard in the present matter.

¶17

The complainant, in short, alleges that by obtaining false affidavit of the present applicants, their names were inserted in the record, so that they should get the advantage of the schemes meant for the citizen below poverty line and specifically benefit of D.R.D. scheme. Certain interpolation of record of the Gramsabha is also alleged to have been made. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that in the Gramsabha, there was a resolution, finding that the present applicants were entitled to be beneficiaries under the above schemes. Even an appeal was preferred to the Tahsildar in which upon scrutiny of various documents, the persons who were found entitled, were directed to be

¶18

¶19

Cri.Appln.No.3280/2012

¶20

included in the list of beneficiaries. It was further submitted that the officials concerned with the present episode i.e. Gramsevak, Village Development Officer and Project Officer are already released on anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the complainant brought to the notice of the Court that prima facie there is case of interpolation in the resolutions passed by the Gramsabha and a deliberate wrong reference to certain resolutions is also made so that the present applicants, who were not entitled for the benefit of the D.R.D. scheme would get the benefit.

¶22

So far as the persons who are released on anticipatory bail are concerned, it is clear that they were merely officials, not concerned in the present episode and, therefore, there would be no parity so far as their case is concerned.

¶23

This is a prima facie case of inclusion of undeserving persons to the benefits of the schemes meant for the persons below poverty line. The investigation is at the primary stage. Custodial interrogation of the applicants, therefore, would be required. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The Criminal Application No.3280 of 2012 is, therefore, dismissed. Interim protection granted to the applicants is, therefore, revoked.

¶24

Cri.Appln.No.3280/2012

¶25

¶26

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicants submits that in Criminal Application No.3280 of 2012, the interim protection granted to the applicants be continued to avail the further opportunity to the applicants of seeking anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer is hereby rejected.

¶27

So far as Criminal Application No.3116 of 2012 is concerned, the applicants made statements that during the concerned period they were not Gramsevak and Sarpanch, respectively. Accepting the statement, their application deserves to be allowed. In the circumstances, the interim protection granted to them is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions. Criminal Application No.3116 of 2012 allowed accordingly.

¶28

(vvr/3280.12criappln)

Sudhakar Baliram Khillare and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Baliram Khillare and Ors. v. the State of Mah 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

Balu Balbhim Gurav and Anr. Vs the State of Mah.

Rameshwar Ashokrao Gadekar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Pralhad Shivlal Dehangal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Ramesh Radhakishan Mane Thr Lrs Achut Radhakishan Mane and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madhav Ramrao Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pandarirao Bajirao Sarnaik and Anr. Vs the State of Mah