Dismissed

Maruti Jaywant Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Sept 2014ABA/1077/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two government servants applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged forgery and fraud against the government. The High Court examined the prima facie evidence and costs of the enquiry officer's report. The court concluded that custody was necessary for the investigation. Both applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Both applications for anticipatory bail were rejected and the applicants were required to obtain regular bail or remain in custody to proceed with the investigation.

Maruti Jaywant Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

13 & 14.ABA1077 & 1078_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1077 OF 2014

¶5

Maruti Jaywant Gaikwad … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1078 OF 2014

¶7

Suryakant Baburao Gholave … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. V.V. Purwant, Advocate for the applicants in both the matters. Mr. Shrikant Yadav, APP for the State in both the matters.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 3^rd September, 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The Applications are moved for anticipatory bail by these two Government servants. The applicant Suryakant Baburao Gholave was Assistant Agricultural officer at Akkalkot and applicant Maruti Jaywant Gaikwad was supervisor in Agricultural Department in the year 201112. One Ram Shankar Phadtare who is serving as Taluka Agricultural officer has lodged the FIR with Akkalkot South Police Station, Solapur, pursuant to which the offence is registered at C.R. No. 114/2014 punishable under sections 420, 409, 468 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

13 & 14.ABA1077 & 1078_2014.doc

¶14

It is the case of the prosecution that the Government has lodged the scheme by named Mahatma Phule Jal Bhumi Abhiyan and subsidy is given to the agriculturist for excavation of silt or dirt from nalla. In this scheme, a cheque amount of Rs.33,870/ was deposited in the name of Krishnat Jadhav, resident of Besi Umarg, Taluka Akkalkot for the purpose of cleaning of nalla and excavation of silt. However, the said work was not done at all and as per the allegations, both the applicants/accused prepared bogus letter, forged signature of Krishnat Jadhav and withdrew the said amount. The work of excavation was not done and when it was detected, the Government appointed one Appasaheb Khade as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry in respect of fraud under the scheme and submitted his report on 17^th April, 2013. He pointed out that these two applicants/accused have misappropriated the said amount with the help of forged documents and the work of excavation of silt was not done. This offence has taken place from 21^st July, 2011 to 8^th November, 2012.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the allegations are false. The applicants/accused were never involved in such kind of fraud. In fact the work of cleaning of nalla was done. He further submitted that excavation was done in July 2011 to November, 2012. Much time has given from the date of the work and the date of FIR

¶16

2 of 4

¶17

13 & 14.ABA1077 & 1078_2014.doc

¶18

which was lodged on 15^th July, 2014. He relied on some photographs. He further submitted that the applicants/accused are ready to deposit the amount of Rs.33,870/. They have clean record. They may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

Learned APP opposed the Application. He submitted that the Enquiry officer has given negative report against the applicants/accused and pursuant to the said report, the offence was registered. He relied on panchnama dated 7^th March, 2013 and 16^th July, 2014. He submitted that the applicants/accused are involved in this fraud and they have also committed forgery. Their custody is required.

¶20

Prima facie there is evidence against the applicants/accused of taking out money which was deposited in the name of Krishnat Jadhav. There are allegations of forgery of signature of Krishnat Jadhav. Both the applicants are Government servants. However, it appears prima facie that they have played fraud on the Government. The amount of subsidy was obtained though the work of cleaning of nalla was not done at the relevant time. Panchnama of 2013 prima facie supports the case of the prosecution. In such case where the fraud is played on the Government, I am of the view that custody of applicants/accused is required in order to

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

13 & 14.ABA1077 & 1078_2014.doc

¶23

find out other details. It is immaterial whether the amount for which the Government is defrauded is big or small. Hence, both the Applications for anticipatory bail are rejected.

¶24

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶25

4 of 4

Maruti Jaywant Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Jaywant Gaikwad 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

Balu Rama Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sambhaji Biru Kolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Pandurang Bhatale Vs the State of Mahrarashtra

Suresh Tanaji Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashokkk Govind Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Krishnath Ambekar Vs the State of Maharashtra