Dismissed

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur v. Shri Avinash S/O Omprakash Gonmode

Bombay HC4 Oct 2012APPLN/41/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard criminal applications for bail cancellation against two non-applicants accused of conspiring in a tree-cutting fraud. The judge found the evidence very weak due to a five-year delay in FIR registration and lack of direct corroboration. Consequently, the court held that custody was of no purpose and rejected both applications.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Applications for cancellation of bail (Cri. Appln. No. 41/2012 and Cri. Appln. No. 44/2012) were rejected.

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur Vs Shri Avinash S/O Omprakash Gonmode — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 appln41&42.12.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2012

¶4

(State of Maharashtra, through Addl. Supdt. Of Police, ACB, Nagpur, through PSO, PS Seloo, District Wardha ..vs.. Avinash Omprakash Ghonmode) WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2012

¶6

(State of Maharashtra, through Addl. Supdt. Of Police, ACB, Nagpur, through PSO, PS Seloo, District Wardha ..vs.. Sanjay Rameshkumar Kesharwani)

¶7

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

- - - - -- Mr. S.S. Doifode, Addl.P.P. for the applicant/State, Mr. G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for the applicant in Cri. Appln. No.41/2012, Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant in Cri. Appln. No.44/2012.

¶9

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 04 -10-2012.

¶10

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the applicant/State and learned Counsel Mr. G.N. Khanzode and Mr. J.M. Gandhi for the non-applicants.

¶11

The non-applicant in Criminal Application No.41/2012 was working as Range Forest Officer of Hingni Range. There was an agricultural field in the name of one Govinda Waskar where there were about 225 teak trees. Govinda Waskar had a brother by name Nathu Waskar. After death of Govinda Waskar, Nathu Waskar decided to manipulate certain things and sell the said 225 teak trees. Nathu Waskar posed himself to be Govinda Waskar before the Forest Officers and got necessary documents for feeling the trees. He also got the transit pass for transportation of the cut trees. The trees were sold to non-applicant in Criminal Application No.44/2012 allegedly for Rs.30,000/-. It is stated that the value of trees was Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶12

2 appln41&42.12.odt

¶13

Some of the documents for feeling the trees in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Feeling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 were prepared by some other officers namely Mr. Arvind Rajmalwar, Mr. Vivek Khandekar and Durga Singh Nagbhirey. They are also accused in the First Information Report No.12/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Vivek Rajmalwar, Mr. Arvind Khandekar and Mr. Durga Singh Nagbhirey had been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The State of Maharashtra had applied for cancellation of their bail before this Court. The applications filed by the State of Maharashtra have been rejected by this Court in the last week.

¶14

The present applications are also for cancellation of bail of both the non-applicants. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode that both the non-applicants along with the other accused were part of the conspiracy to cut the trees belonging to Govinda Waskar and sell them to the non-applicant in Criminal Application No.44/2012 for a meagre amount of Rs.30,000/-. It is further submitted by Mr. S.S. Doifode that two of the documents were executed by Nathu Waskar posing himself to be Govinda Waskar before the non-applicant Avinash Ghonmode in Criminal Application No.41/2012. It is further submitted by Mr. S.S. Doifode that the non-applicant in Criminal Application No.44/2012 is the beneficiary and he was part of the conspiracy. It is submitted that though there is no direct evidence against him, the circumstances strongly indicate that

¶15

3 appln41&42.12.odt

¶16

he was part of the conspiracy. Mr. S.S. Doifode has contended that the charge of conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. No doubt, in the cases of conspiracy, it is very difficult to get the direct evidence. However in the present case the only circumstance against the non-applicant in Criminal Application No.44/2012 is that he had purchased the teak trees for allegedly lesser than the market value and he had intervened when there was a dispute between the legal heirs of Govinda Waskar and Nathu Waskar. It may be noted here that Nathu Waskar is dead. First Information Report is registered after the death of Nathu Waskar. The incident in question is of year 2006 and First Information Report is registered in the month of February 2012.

¶17

Learned Counsel Mr. G.N. Khanzode has submitted on behalf of the non-applicant in Criminal Application No.41/2012 that the non-applicant did not know that the person who had appeared before him for statement and for agreement was not Govinda Waskar. There was no procedure for identification and verification of the persons who apply for cutting of trees under the Maharashtra Feeling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964.

¶18

Learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Gandi has submitted on behalf of the non-applicant in Criminal Application No.44/2012 that the only alleged offence committed by the non-applicant is that he had received the teak trees from Nathu Waskar which, in fact, did not belong to Nathu. There is no other material, according to me, to show that he was part of the conspiracy or he shared the intention of Nathu Waskar and that there is no evidence of abetment also.

¶19

4 appln41&42.12.odt

¶20

After having examined all the papers placed before me, I have come to the conclusion that there is very very weak type of evidence against both the non-applicants. Moreover, though the alleged incident had occurred in the year 2006, the offence was registered in 2012. All the documents are in possession of the Investigating Officer. Apart from that, the non-applicant in Criminal Application No.41/2012 and other forest officers who are made accused have not denied their signatures on the documents, which are in possession of the Investigating Officer. Similarly, the nonapplicant in Criminal Application No.44/2012 has also not denied his signature on the application for withdrawal of the complaint filed against Nathu. In the circumstances, the custody of the non-applicants, in the present case, will be of formal nature and will not serve any purpose. Since there is no necessity of arrest at all, it follows that both the applications need to be rejected. The applications are accordingly rejected.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

pma

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur v. Shri Avinash S/O Omprakash Gonmode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur v. Shri Avinash S/O Omprakash Gonmode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh S/O Deodatta Gupta and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary and Others

Mukesh S/O Deodatta Gupta and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary and Others

Mukesh Deodatta Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Deptt of Home Affairs and 3 Others

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur Vs Shri Sanjay Rameshkumar Kesharwani

Sau. Leeni W/O Chandrakant Sardar and Another Vs Mr. Chandrakant S/O Haridas Sardar

Sofiya Parveen W/O Ayyaz Ali Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso City Kotwali Akola