Allowed

Satish Vasant Kalyankar v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC25 Feb 2013APPLN/468/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order confirmed an ad-interim direction refusing custodial interrogation in an IPC 420 case due to paucity of corroborative material and inordinate delay. The court granted bail conditions including bond, summons compliance via SMS, residence restriction, and non-inducement.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with sureties; ad-interim direction not modifying custodial interrogation confirmed.

Satish Vasant Kalyankar Vs the State of Mah — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.Appln468.13

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 468 OF 2013

¶5

Satish S/o Vasant Kalyankar
Age : 46 years, Occ : Business,
R/o Harikrupa Residency,
Shambhu Mahadeo Nagar,
Sahakar Nagar, Aurangabad.

¶6

...APPLICANT

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra

¶9

...RESPONDENT

¶10

.....

¶11

Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, advocate for Applicant.
Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶12

.....

¶13

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.
 DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2013

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

1.Though the prayer for confirming the ad-
interim direction given by my Predecessor on 23rd
January, 2013 is objected by learned A.P.P. on the
count of there being eye witnesses to the event of
payment Rs. 36 Lakhs and Rs. 50 Lakhs and the
amount allegedly paid is yet to be recovered, in
peculiar facts and circumstances it is difficult to
perceive the need of custodial interrogation for
such purposes. Needless to add that the prosecution
reply does not reveal any material being collected
except the statements of interested witnesses
regarding the event of payment as alleged having

¶16

Cri.Appln468.13

¶17

-2-

¶18

occurred. There is paucity of corroborative
material in the charge-sheet showing that on the
relevant day, the first informant and other victim
were in possession of such a huge amount as
claimed. The strong possibility of false
implication denoted by inordinate delay of three
years and seven months in lodging the report is not
nullified in any type of material in the diary.
Hence, ad-interim directions already given deserves
to be and accordingly stands confirmed on the
following terms.

¶19

2.Inform the Investigating Officer of Crime
No.I-4/2013 registered with Osmanpura Police
Station, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad for offence under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code that in the
event of arrest of applicant in connection with
above referred crime, he shall be forthwith
released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) with one or
more sureties in the like amount and subject to the
condition that applicant :-

¶20

(i)shall attend the Investigating Officer as and
when summoned by him by giving SMS on his mobile
phone which is to be furnished by the applicant
today only through his Advocate to the learned APP.

¶21

(ii)shall stay at the address mentioned in the
application and shall not change said address
without the permission of the Court.

¶22

-3-

¶23

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

¶24

(iv)shall not commit any offence while enjoying
the benefits granted under this order.

¶25

3.The Application stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.

¶26

[P.D. KODE,J.]

¶27

sga/

Satish Vasant Kalyankar v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Vasant Kalyankar 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

Prabhakar Pandurang Chaudhari Vs the State of Mah

Shankar Sakharam Garde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pandurang Kashiba Divase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Asaram Pandit and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Shaikh Shakeer Shaikh Babu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharatabai Keshavrao Bhalerao Vs Pravin Narayan Kadam and Others