Allowed

Balkrushna @ Balaji Shivaji @ Shivajirao Katare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Sept 2014ABA/1054/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy for alleged malpractices in a SETU office, finding a prima facie possibility of false implication due to his prior complaints against the Tahsildar. Bail granted subject to bonds, reporting, and specific conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000 with sureties, attendance at police station on Thursdays, and prohibition against future offences or leaving India.

Balkrushna @ Balaji Shivaji @ Shivajirao… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

902.ABA1054_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1054 OF 2014

¶6

Balkrushna @ Balaji Shivaji

¶7

@ Shivajirao Katare … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Ritesh Thobde, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶9

I.O. Mr. Indrajeet S. Somkamble, A.P.I., Akkalkot (North) Police Station, Solapur(Rural) present.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 19^th September, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail, as the

¶13

applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406,188 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

One Sagar Prakash Vishnu, who is working as a Circle officer in Tahsildar office, Akkalkot gave information to the police station that malpractices are going on in SETU Suvidha Office at Akkalkot. On receipt of the information of malpractices, the informant along with the Tahsildar and other officers gave surprise visit to SETU Suvidha office and enquired with the persons who were present in the office. They found that two persons, namely, Mahadev Kashinath Shinde and Nagappa Karekanli were

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

902.ABA1054_2014.doc

¶17

in possession of many documents of different persons, such as ration card, bonafide certificate, caste certificate, school leaving certificate, 7/12 extract, Domicile certificate which are generally required to obtain certificate from SETU office. As these persons were found in possession of the certificates of many persons, they realized that those two persons were agents or torts who were not legally allowed in SETU office, as the purpose of SETU office was to give direct service to the citizens. They found that the applicant/accused who runs SETU office is responsible for the malpractices and accordingly the information was given to the police. Pursuant to the said information, the police from Akkalkot Police Station registered an offence in C.R. No. 134/2014 on 7^th July, 2014 against the applicant/accused.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that those persons were not found in SETU office but they were out of the premises of the office. He further relied on the complaint and the letters written by him to Tahsildar, Akkalkot Police Station on 7^th November, 2013, 30^th January, 2014 and 27^th June, 2014 which are attached to the application. He submitted that by these letters, the applicant/accused has pointed out that Tahsildar was not putting signatures on number of certificates since last one year and therefore, the citizens experienced lot

¶19

2 of 4

¶20

902.ABA1054_2014.doc

¶21

of inconvenience. The learned counsel submitted that because of such communication, the Tahsildar Akkalkot was not happy with the applicant/accused and deliberately an inspection was conducted and false allegations are made against him. He is ready to cooperate the police. He further submitted that the contract of running SETU office is not terminated and he is still running the SETU office.

¶22

Learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating officer, submitted that it is confirmed that the contract between the Government and applicant/accused of running the SETU office is not yet terminated though the applicant/accused is prosecuted. There is no investigation in respect of complaints given by the applicant/accused to Tahsildar. She opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application.

¶23

Perused the FIR and the letters written by the applicant/accused to Tahsildar putting his grievance against the working of Tahsildar. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the applicant/accused has written letters to Tahsildar pointing out his dis functioning might have lead false implication of the applicant/accused. Prima facie, this possibility cannot be overruled and therefore, I am inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicant/accused. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed on the following terms and

3 of 4

902.ABA1054_2014.doc

conditions:

O R D E R

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/ with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶29

(ii) The applicant/accused shall not commit such type of offence again and not to allow agents and torts in SETU office.

¶30

(iii) The applicant/accused is directed to attend the concerned police station on every Thursday between 4 p.m.

¶31

to 5 p.m. for one month.

¶32

(iv) Breach of any of these conditions will amount to cancellation of prearrest bail forthwith.

¶33

(v) The applicant/accused shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶34

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶35

4 of 4

Balkrushna @ Balaji Shivaji @ Shivajirao Katare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkrushna @ Balaji Shivaji @ Shivajirao Katare v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India Vs Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara and Anr.

Yogesh Sadashiv Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Dattu Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Rajaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Mrugendra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra