Allowed

Pandurang Digambar Bhagnure v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC6 Nov 2012APPLN/4743/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail against charges of cheating and forgery involving a school appointment. Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail with surety and personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail via personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and surety of same amount, subject to appearing before Investigating Officer.

Pandurang Digambar Bhagnure Vs the State of Mah — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.4743 of 2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4743 OF 2012

¶5

Pandurang s/o Digambar Bhagnure

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Mr R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate i/b Mr N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for applicant

¶11

Mr P.N.Mulay, A.P.P. for respondent

¶12

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶13

DATE : 6th November 2012

¶14

PER COURT

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

The present applicant, who is apprehending arrest at the hands of M.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad in connection with Crime No.I-76/2012, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, is praying for his release on bail.

¶17

The allegations made by the complainant in short are that, by making a payment of Rs.3,00,000/- her husband obtained the appointment in the residential Ashram School, run by the present applicant and others. It was promised at that time that as and when the grant-in-aid would be sanctioned by the State Government, full salary will be paid and till then a salary at the

¶18

Cri.Appln.No.4743 of 2012

¶19

¶20

rate of Rs.5,000/- per month would be paid. In the circumstances, the complainant's husband joined the services in January 2011. However, till the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. till June 2012, no salary was paid. It was, therefore, alleged that the entire school is bogus and a bogus appointment letter is issued, the complaint came to be filed.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the school is a residential Ashram School, wherein pending the proposal for recognition, the school can be operated. In the circumstances, he submits that pending the recognition, as well as pending the issue of grant-in-aid, the school is run and, therefore, it cannot be called as a bogus school or the appointment letter as a bogus one. The learned Counsel relies in the judgment in a group of writ petitions along with Writ Petition No.7658 of 2009, decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 1st February 2009, wherein Rule 106 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 is reproduced, which runs as under :

¶22

"[106. Application for recognition :- (1) subject to the provisions of this rule, and application for recognition of a new private school shall be made to the Competent Authority not later than the first day of November, of any year.

¶23

Cri.Appln.No.4743 of 2012

¶24

¶25

(2) Such application shall be made after the school has actually started functioning and has been in existence for a period of not less than three months.

¶26

(3) The application shall be accompanied by a statement in the Form A' set out in Appendix C' to these rules together with an undertaking in writing that the conditions of employment of teachers in such private school shall be as near as possible to those specified in Schedule `F'.

¶27

(4) The application shall state the name and address of the correspondent, and the management shall report any change in such name and address of the correspondent to the Competent Authority"

¶28

In view of this, the matter will now come to the nonpayment of salary. There are allegations that the cheque was passed by the society as regards the salary, which was dishonoured. In the situation, the learned Counsel submits that anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.

¶29

The learned A.P.P. opposed the application.

¶30

Considering the overall material on record, as detailed supra and considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in my view the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. In the circumstances, the following order.

¶31

Cri.Appln.No.4743 of 2012

¶32

¶33

(I) The application is allowed. In the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.I-76/2012, registered at M.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant be released upon his execution of P.R.Bond in the amount of Rs.20,000/- and also upon furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶34

(II) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer, as and when reasonably called by him.

¶35

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶36

(vvr/4743.12criappln)

Pandurang Digambar Bhagnure v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Digambar Bhagnure 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivkumar Bhagwan Manurkar Vs Anantrao Shivajirao Wagh

Sanjay Munjijirao Ghodajkar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe Vs the State of Mah

Saraswati Dairy by Its Proprietor Dipak Chotiram Tekwani Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nandu Ananda Bhosale Vs the State of Mah

Shaikh Rafique Shaikh Hussain Vs the State of Mah