Allowed

Pushpa Raosaheb Pathare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Feb 2012APPLN/67/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed bail to three applicants accused in a criminal case involving alleged cheating in a land sale transaction, holding that purchasers do not incur liability unless they are parties to the fraud, as the FIR did not allege such involvement.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants to furnish personal bonds and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000 each; to appear before Investigation Officer when called.

Pushpa Raosaheb Pathare and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Cri.Appl.No.67 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2012

¶5

Pushpa Raosaheb Pathare,

¶6

Age52 years, OccuAgriculturist/Household,

¶7

Babasaheb S/o.Raosaheb Pathare,

¶8

Age29 years, OccuAgriculturist,

¶9

Raosaheb S/o.Babasaheb Pathare,

¶10

Age62 years, OccuAgriculturist,

¶11

All R/o.Kedgaon, Tal. And Dist.

¶12

Ahmednagar APPLICANTS

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

The State of Maharashtra

¶15

RESPONDENT

¶16

Mr.M.S.Jagtap, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶17

(CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶18

DATE : 08/02/2012

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

Crime No.I337/11 of Ahmednagar Kotwali Police Station is lodged by Darshankaur Santoshsing Dhariwal, who is owner of land gat nos.38 and 43. Her grievance is that area of 1.38 Hecters out of block no.38 has been sold by her step brother Deorao Bhagaji Gaikwad presenting woman who was imposter, Present applicant no.1 Pushpa is the purchaser in the said transaction. Applicant no.2 and applicant no.3 are respectively son and husband of the applicant no.1.

¶21

The contents of the complaint do not disclose as to how at all the

¶22

2 Cri.Appl.No.67 of 2012

¶23

cheating has been done by the applicants. Purchasers could be involved in that offence if there is an allegation that the purchasers are abators or conspirators. Any such version is not seen in FIR.

¶24

On the face of FIR, as it is, the applicants are not liable to be blamed for the act of cheating the complainant.

¶25

Unless purchaser is a party to the fraud, the purchaser is cheated.

¶26

In the result, applicants have made out the case for grant of bail.

¶27

Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. The applicants shall furnish personal bonds and solvent sureties in a sum of Rs.25,000/ each and shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when called.

¶28

(A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶29

khs/FEB.2012/cri.appl.6712

Pushpa Raosaheb Pathare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Raosaheb Pathare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Devdatta Balasaheb Pachare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Datta Linga Toshatwad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramesh Rakhmaji Bothikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khandu Bapu Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gokul Onkar Patil Vs the State of Mah

Dattatraya Bhausaheb Sable Vs the State of Maharashtra