This court rejected an anticipatory bail application, holding that no case existed for its grant after the Expert opinion established that the signature on the acknowledgment/payment receipt is forged.
Rejects the anticipatory bail application citing forgery of the receipt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
sbw
aba1132.13
1/1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1132 OF 2013
Sau Vaishali Sanjay Bhutada & Anr.
...Applicants
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Saurabh Batula i/b. Harshad V. Bhadbhade for the Applicants. Ms. A. A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent – State. Mr. Ashok Varma with Rajendra Kookala i/b. Rajendra Rathod for the Original Complainant.
2] The substance of accusation in FIR is that the
acknowledgment/payment receipt is forged.
3] Expert opinion received by Crime Branch expresses that
signature on the receipt is forged.
4] In this background, the applicants have no case for grant of anticipatory bail.
wadhwa
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given expert opinion regarding forgery of signature on the receipt?
Sau Vaishali Sanjay Bhutada & Anr.
The State of Maharashtra
sbw
aba1132.13
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
