Allowed

Patilba Mahadeo Pingle v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC22 Nov 2012APPLN/5099/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case concerning alleged contract breach and cheating. The court held that custodial interrogation was not required and ordered release upon executing a bond of Rs. 20,000 and furnishing surety.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail upon executing a PR bond of Rs. 20,000 and furnishing surety in the like amount; direction to appear before I.O. for 8 weeks.

Patilba Mahadeo Pingle Vs the State of Mah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. 5099-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5099 OF 2012

¶4

Patilba S/o Mahadeo Pingle Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent

¶5

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : M. T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 22^ND NOVEMBER, 2012

¶7

ORAL ORDER:

¶8

1. Heard both sides.

¶9

2.The present applicant who is apprehending arrest
at the hands of Gondi Police Station, Dist. Jalna in crime
no.85 of 2012 for the offences punishable under section
406, 34 of the I.P.C. is praying for his release on bail.

¶10

3.This Court has granted anticipatory bail to one
Santosh Kisanrao Deshmukh in Criminal Application no.4541
of 2012 vide order dated 05.11.2012. Said applicant-
Santosh as an agricultural overseer is alleged to have
entered into contract with various supervisors or labours
for the purposes of sugar-cane cutting for the factory.
The present applicant is one of the contractor (supervisor

¶11

of the labours). At the time of granting anticipatory
bail to the overseer i.e. Santosh, this Court has observed

¶12

(2) Cri. Appln. 5099-2012

¶13

that the FIR itself would show that there was breach of
contract. Sofar as the present applicant is concerned,
the learned counsel for the applicant points towards the
notice which was issued by the applicant to the sugar
factory in the year 2002, claiming certain amount from
them. It was further submitted that the applicant has
provided labours to the factory. Despite this, if there
is certain breach of the contract, according to the
complainant, the same cannot be a ground for filing of the
FIR.

¶14

submits that there are 12 accused in the present case out
of which three accused are already arrested and they are

¶15

released on regular bail. Further, taking into
consideration the enormity of the offence, wherein 12
accused have duped the factory, this is not a fit case for
grant of anticipatory bail.

¶16

5.At this stage, it is not required to find out as
to whether the FIR makes out the offence or not. However,
finding that the custodial interrogation of the applicant
is not required, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the present applicant also deserves to be
protected.

¶17

(3) Cri. Appln. 5099-2012

¶18

6. In the result, the following order:-

¶19

I)In the event of arrest of the applicant in crime
no. 85 of 2012 of Gondi Police Station, Dist. Jalna for

¶20

the offences punishable under section 406, 34 of the IPC,
he be released on bail, upon his executing PR bond in the
sum of Rs.20,000/- and also upon furnishing surety in the
like amount.

¶21

II)The applicant shall attend the I.O. as and when
reasonably called by him, for a period of eight (8) weeks
from the date of this order for the purposes of
investigation/interrogation.

¶22

7. Application disposed of.

¶23

arp/

Patilba Mahadeo Pingle v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patilba Mahadeo Pingle 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Ratan Dhangar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar Mahadeo Shinde Vs the State of Mah

The State of Mah Vs Dnyandeo Bondaru Patil and Anr.

Rajanikant Ramdas Narwade Vs the State of Mah

Suresh Yashwant Sonawane Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Vaijnath Pandit Gapat and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.