Allowed

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC5 Nov 2012APPLN/4213/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application filed by a former General Manager of a Co-operative Society for anticipatory bail against arrest on charges of breach of trust and criminal conspiracy. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary due to the lapse of time since resignation and evidence being in the complainant's custody, making the ad interim bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

The ad interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 18th September 2012 is hereby made absolute.

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe Vs the State of Mah — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.4213 of 2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4213 OF 2012

¶5

Rameshwar s/o Madhukar Sarpe

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Mr G.G.Kadam, Advocate for applicant Mr P.P.More, A.P.P. for respondent

¶11

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 5th November 2012

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

The present applicant, who is apprehending arrest at the hands of Akole Police Station in Crime No.I-87/2012, for the offences punishable under Section 408, 20 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, is praying for his release on anticipatory bail.

¶16

The applicant was the General Manager in a Co-operative Society. The complaint is filed by one of the Directors on 3.9.2012. The applicant has resigned from the job on 7.1.2011. Upon his acceptance of the resignation, the charge was given on 25.1.2011. In the circumstances, the present complaint is filed.

¶17

The gist of the complaint is that while the applicant was

¶18

¶19

Cri.Appln.No.4213 of 2012

¶20

serving as General Manager, he without any authorisation directly transferred one Rohidas Bhavari, a labour as a Salesman over a stall during his tenure. An amount of Rs.1,76,966 was not accounted. Said Rohidas, in the meantime deposited the said amount. It is alleged that the present applicant being the General Manager, who was directly responsible for controlling the affairs, has merely made a show of taking action against said Rohidas. The notice was sent to the complainant which was replied falsely by him. In the circumstances, the offence came to be registered.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that much after the period in dispute regarding the transaction with Rohidas and much after the resignation was accepted, the present complaint came to be filed only in order to take certain revenge indirectly. The documents filed by the applicant would show that time and again he has noticed the Chairman in regard to conduct of said Rohidas. His custodial interrogation is not necessary.

¶22

The learned A.P.P. opposed the application. He submits that bye-laws of the society would show that power of transfer lies with the Board of Directors and not with the General Manager. The present applicant appointed said Rohidas, a labour as a Salesman over a stall. Further a show was made that certain

¶23

Cri.Appln.No.4213 of 2012

¶24

¶25

action was taken by the said General Manager against said Rohidas and false documents to that effect were filed. The statements of Chairman and two other witnesses were recorded in this regard. The application, therefore, may be dismissed.

¶26

Taking into consideration all these facts and most importantly, lapse of the period from the date of the resignation of the applicant till the filing of the complaint and finding that all the documentary evidence is in the custody of the complainant, in my view the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. In the circumstances, the following order.

¶27

(I) The ad interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 18th September 2012 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

¶28

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶30

(vvr/4213.12criappln)

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe 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

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rohidas@Haridas Suryakant Gunjal Vs the State of Mah

Shivkumar Bhagwan Manurkar Vs Anantrao Shivajirao Wagh

Sanjay Munjijirao Ghodajkar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Kalim Papamiya Shaikh Vs the State of Mah