Partly allowed

Muralidhar Pandurang Belke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Mar 2013APPLN/901/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Bombay HC bench dismissed a pre-arrest bail application for embezzlement of employment guarantee funds. The court directed two applicants to surrender by March 4, 2013, for custody proceedings, continuing interim bail until 11 a.m. on that date. For the third applicant, the court ordered the Investigating Officer to provide a 48-hour advance notice before arrest, ensuring non-discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail continued until 11:00 AM on 4th March, 2013; applicants 1 & 3 directed to surrender to JMFC for custody decision; IO directed to give 48-hour notice before arresting applicant 2.

Muralidhar Pandurang Belke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra901.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.901 OF 2013

¶6

`1) Muralidhar s/o Pandurang Belke,` `Age-40 years, Occu:Service as` `Gram Sevak with Gram Panchayat` `Mandalapur, Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded,` `R/o-Village Mandalapur, Tq-Mukhed,` `Dist-Nanded,`
`2) Bhausaheb s/o Khushalrao Patil,` `Age-40 years, Occu:Agriculture,` `R/o-As Above,`
`3) Atmaram s/o Laxman Gawalwad,` `Age-30 years, Occu:Service as` `Gram Rojgar Sevak with Gram` `Panchayat Mandalapur, Tq-Mukhed,` `Dist-Nanded, R/o-As Above.` `...APPLICANTS` `VERSUS`
`1) The State of Maharashtra,` `Through the Police Inspector,` `Mukhed Police Station, Mukhed,` `Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded,`
`2) The Police Inspector,` `Local Crime Branch, Nanded,` `Tq. & Dist-Nanded,`
`3) The Superintendent of Police,` `Nanded.` `...RESPONDENTS`

¶7

cra901.13

¶8

¶9

...

¶10

 Shri.Rajendra Deshmukh Advocate for Applicants.
 Shri.D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for Respondents.

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶13

 DATE : 1ST MARCH, 2013

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

1. This is an Application for pre-arrest bail.

¶16

The Applicants are protected up-till today by an
interim order passed on 22nd February, 2013.

¶17

2.The crime in question is registered

¶18

regarding the transaction which has resulted into
embezzlement of money to be distributed under
EmploymentGuaranteeScheme. The alleged
embezzlement is to the extent of more than
Rs.1,49,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakh).

¶19

3.The prosecution in response to the notice

¶20

of the Application has filed the say. The learned
A.P.P. urged that custody of Applicant Nos. 1 and

¶21

cra901.13

¶22

¶23

3 is required mainly for two purposes i.e. for
seizing the record of Gram Panchayat and for
specimen handwriting of the said Applicants in
order to ascertain the truth in the allegation
whether any false record was prepared as alleged.

¶24

4.The question of the custody can be well
decided by the remand Court after perusal of the
material in the case diary. In the circumstances,
the Applicant Nos. 1 and 3 to surrender before the
Court of J.M.F.C. Mukhed on or before 4th March,
2013. Leave to make an application for bail. The
said Court to decide the question of custody and
also entitlement of bail in light of the material
in the case diary. The interim order passed
earlier in favour of both the Applicants to
continue till 11.00 a.m. of 4th March, 2013, on
the earlier terms.

¶25

5.In view of the Investigating Officer

¶26

having made a statement that in event of his

¶27

cra901.13

¶28

¶29

desire to arrest the other co-accused in the
crime, they would be given 48 hours advance
notice, there appears no reason for making
discrimination for not passing such order in
favour of Applicant No.2.

¶30

6.Investigating Officer of the said crime,
in event of his desire to arrest Applicant No.2,
shall give him 48 hours advance notice. Liberty to
the Applicant No.2 in such event, to pursue the
appropriate legal remedy.

¶31

7.The Application stands disposed of in the

¶32

aforesaid terms.

¶33

 [P.D. KODE,J.]

¶34

asb/MAR13

Muralidhar Pandurang Belke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidhar Pandurang Belke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Chaitali Digambar Jawale Vs the State of Mah

Datta Sahebrao Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mhatardeo Bajirao Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh Vajir Vs the State of Mah

Bhagwan @ Bhagya Bavchya Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Idbi Bank Limited Vs Anuradha Bhagwat Borude and Another