Allowed

Sangita Ganesh Chavan v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC7 Feb 2013APPLN/463/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench allowed two applications seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC against charges of cheating and forgery. Finding no prima facie case out against the applicants, the court granted bail subject to conditions and disposed of both petitions, noting one set of applicants was already covered by a previous interim order. Quality: ok

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all applicants upon execution of Police Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties.

Sangita Ganesh Chavan Vs the State of Mah — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra463.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.463 OF 2013

¶6

Sow. Sangita w/o Ganesh Chavan,
Age-37 years, Occu:Sarpanch,
R/o-Rameshawar Tanda, Tq-Kalamnuri,
Dist-Hingoli.

¶7

...APPLICANT

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Investigating Officer,
Police Station Akhada Balapur,
Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli.

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

 WITH

¶12

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2013

¶13

1) Ganesh s/o Narayan Chavan, Age-45 years, Occu:Agri.,

¶14

2) Rajesh s/o Dudhram Jadhav, Age-41 years, Occu:Agri.,

¶15

3) Dilip s/o Lalu Jadhav, Age-38 years, Occu:Agri.,

¶16

4) Sheshrao s/o Shankarrao Chavan, Age-38 years, Occu:Agri.,

¶17

All R/o-Rameshawar Tanda,

¶18

Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli.

¶19

...APPLICANTS

¶20

cra463.13

¶21

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Investigating Officer,
Police Station Akhada Balapur,
Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli.

¶24

 ...RESPONDENT

¶25

...

¶26

 Shri.R.J. Nirmal Advocate for Applicants.
 Shri.G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondent.
 Shri.V.G. Sakolkar Advocate to assist P.P.
 in Criminal Application No.463 of 2013.

¶27

...

¶28

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶29

DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2013

¶30

ORAL ORDER :

¶31

1.Heard.

¶32

2.The Applicants in both these Applications
have prayed for a direction under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with
Crime No.3 of 2013 registered with Akhada Balapur
Police Station, Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli, for
the offence under Sections 409, 420, 468 of the
Indian Penal Code, registered on 13th January,
2013, by virtue of an order passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Kalamnuri, upon the private complaint

¶33

cra463.13

¶34

¶35

preferred by one Sahebrao Amruta Rathod.

¶36

3.According to the complainant, the list of
beneficiaries under Indira Aawas Yojna was
published by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Hingoli. The list amongst others,
contain name of "Rathod Sahebrao Baliram".
According to the complainant, he is the same
person. According to him, the Applicant in
Criminal Application No.502 of 2013, namely,
Sahebrao Baliram Jadhav, resident of Rameshawar
Tanda, in connivance with Gramsevak and Sarpanch
i.e. Applicant in Criminal Application No.463 of
2013and so also in connivance with the Applicants
in Criminal Application No.503 of 2013, in order
to deprive the complainant from the benefit under
Indira Aawas Yojna, obtained the forged
certificate from Gramsevak and Sarpanch i.e.
Applicant in Criminal Application No.463 of 2013.
It is alleged that after obtaining such a
certificate, on the basis of the same, said
Sahebrao surreptitiously obtained the benefit and
in the said process the Applicants in Criminal
Application No.503 of 2013 aided him by signing
the documents.

¶37

4.The prosecution though served with the

¶38

cra463.13

¶39

¶40

notice of these Applications, has not filed any
reply. During the course of argument, the learned
A.P.P. was not able to show any material
connecting the Applicant in Criminal Application
No.463 of 2013 with the issuance of a certificate
which was made basis for obtaining the benefit.
Similarly, the learned A.P.P. was not able to show
in material revealing the Applicants in Criminal
Application No.503 of 2013 having aided or abetted
the commission of an offences of which the
beneficiary was said "Sahebrao".

¶41

5.Needless to add, that the certificate
issued by the Gramsevak is not containing any
endorsement made by Sarpanch, Applicant in
Criminal Application No.463 of 2013, indicating
that the same was issued at her behest. Similarly,
no other material is pointed out showing either
her involvement in issuing the certificate or the
involvement of the Applicants in Criminal
Application No.503 of 2013 in any acts which had
resulted in said "Sahebrao" receiving benefits.

¶42

6.The investigation is said to be in
progress. Having regard to the same, the dilation
to the extent of necessity is made out regarding
the material so far collected by the prosecution.

¶43

cra463.13

¶44

¶45

Perusal of the said material, supports the
submission of the learned counsel for the
Applicants of there being no material, prima facie
establishing involvement of the Applicants in
these Applications in the concerned offences.
Hence it is difficult to accept that any case is
beingmadeoutnecessitatingcustodial
interrogation of these Applicants. Hence their
Applications deserve to be allowed. Needless to
add that the Applicants in Criminal Application
No.503 of 2013 are already protected by the
interim order dated 31st January, 2013. Hence the
order:-

¶46

7.Inform the Investigating Officer of the
Crime No.3 of 2013 registered with Akhada Balapur
Police Station, Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli, that
in event of arrest of the Applicants in connection
with the said crime, the Applicants shall be
forthwith released on bail, upon each of them
executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or
more sureties in the like amount and subject to
the conditions that each of the Applicants:-

¶47

(i) shall attend the Investigating Officer on
Monday in between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. for a

¶48

cra463.13

¶49

¶50

period of one week and thereafter whenever
summoned by the Investigating Officer.

¶51

(ii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the
Applications and shall not change the same without
permission of the trial Court.

¶52

(iii) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the accusation
levelled against them so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Investigating
Officer.

¶53

(iv) shall not misuse the liberty granted by this
order for committing any offence.

¶54

8.Both the Applications stand disposed of.

¶55

 [P.D. KODE,J.]

¶56

asb/FEB13

Sangita Ganesh Chavan v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Ganesh Chavan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhav Hema Rathod Vs the State of Mah

Sarjerao Sakharam Awsarmal and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shesherao Limbaji Khillare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Sudhakar Daingade Vs the State of Mah

Vitthal Mahadu Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Krushna Jagannath Sirsat and Anr. Vs the State of Mah