Partly allowed

Prakash S/O Ramlal Khapre and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalmeshwar Distt Nagpur

Bombay HC18 Sept 2012BA/621/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, allowed a bail application under CrPC. The court initially deferred the order due to lack of proof of permanent residence. Upon production of ration cards and driving license, it directed the release of both applicants on bail with attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in sum of Rs. 10,000 with surety; daily attendance until charge-sheet filing.

Prakash S/O Ramlal Khapre and Another Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/3

¶2

18.09.ba.621.12

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA ) NO. 621 /2012

¶5

(1) Prakash s/o Ramlal Khapre and another vs. State of Maharashtra )

¶6

.................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 18^th September, 2012.

¶9

Heard Mr. S.P. Hedaoo, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. D.B.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶10

The applicants have been arrested in Crime No. 123/ 2012 for the offences punishable u/ss. 420, 468, 471 r/ws.34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Kalmeshwar Police Station, District Nagpur. The date of arrest is 27^th July 2012. It is alleged that the applicant no.1 got one sale deed executed in his favour in respect of the property owned by one Mr Vikram Netke on the basis of a photograph of the person who was not Mr Vikram Netke. The applicant no.2 was the witness to the said document.

¶11

During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Mr.Hedaoo that the person who posed himself to be Mr Vikram Netke was brought by accused-Chandrashekhar Meshram. Mr Chandrashekhar Meshram has been arrested and he is presently in the judicial custody.

¶12

2/3

¶13

18.09.ba.621.12

¶14

During the course of hearing, it has transpired that the person who appeared as Mr Vikram Netke before the Sub-Registrar has not been arrested till today. It is submitted by Mr Hedaoo that Chandrashekhar Meshram knows the said person. The learned APP is not able to tell the Court as to what steps have been taken by the police to arrest said person. It prima facie appears to me that Chandrashkar Mershram is the key accused in the present case. It further appears that the applicants were used as dummies, may be, for a meagre amount.

¶15

After having heard both the sides and going through the papers of investigation, I am of the view that on merits the applicants are entitled for bail. However there is no permanent address of the applicants in the Application nor the learned Advocate for the applicants is able to give permanent address of the applicants. The learned Advocate is not able to produce any documents to show that the applicants are permanent residents of Nagpur and they will be available during the course of the trial. In the circumstances, the order is deferred for further dictation. The learned Advocate is at liberty to produce the documents to show the addresses of the applicants. Further order will be dictated only on production of the documents.

¶16

th Stand over to 25 September, 2012 .

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

LATER ON AT 2.30 P.M.

¶19

3/3

¶20

18.09.ba.621.12

¶21

The learned counsel Mr S.P. Hedaoo has produced the Ration Card of father of the applicants. Names of both the applicants appear in the Ration Card. Driving Licence of the applicant-Manoj is also produced. As such, there is sufficient proof of their permanent residence at Nagpur. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶22

The applicants be released on bail in the um of Rs. 10,000/- each, with one solvent surety in the like amount. They shall attend the office of the Investigating officer daily in between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. from the respective dates of their release till the charge-sheet is filed.

¶23

Humdast allowed.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

sahare

Prakash S/O Ramlal Khapre and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalmeshwar Distt Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash S/O Ramlal Khapre and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalmeshwar Distt Nagpur

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

Kapil S/O Rajesh Tode Vs State of Maharashtr through Pso Ranapratap Nagar Nagpur

Shaikh Kayum Shaikh Salam Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Ansing, Tq and Distt Washim

Allabaksh Abdul Pirjade Vs State of Maharashtra through Investigation Officer, State CID Nagpur

Mohammad Rafique S/O Mohar Ali Mansoori Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalmana Nagpur

Lalit S/O Ramprakash Sood Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector Kotwali Police Station

Ravishankar S/O Lalmohar Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Gittikhadan Nagpur