Dismissed

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Sept 2014ABA/1102/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application filed in a cheating case involving forgery of sale deeds, the High Court at Bombay confirmed the lower court's order granting interim bail and allowed the application. The court noted the applicant was not a beneficiary and acted on instructions from a faux purchaser.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, confirming the order of interim bail.

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

908.ABA1102_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1102 OF 2014

¶6

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav … Applicant vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Anand S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 11^th September, 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail, as the

¶12

applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 39/2014 with Shahupuri Police Station, District Kolhapur.

¶13

It is the case of the prosecution that one Shahaji Kale approached the informant Smt. Padma Balasaheb Vankudre on 5^th February, 2014 claiming that he is a bonafide purchaser of the land which is owned by the informant and her daughter. The informant was shocked, as she has not sold the said plot to anybody. After perusing the sale deed produced by Shahaji Kale, she realized that two ladies have impersonated the informant and her daughter, who are the legal owners of the said land. Therefore, she realized that Shahaji Kale has purchased the said property

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

908.ABA1102_2014.doc

¶16

for an amount of Rs.35 lakhs by cheque. She realized that principal accused, coaccused and applicant/accused have cheated her and have received illegal amount of sale proceeds. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused Vipul Jadhav has acted as a witness at the time of registration of the sale deed.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that besides this, the applicant/accused has not played any role. He is not the beneficiary of the amount and he has acted as per the instructions of the bonafide purchaser, who is the employer of the applicant/accused. He submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent about the entire transaction.

¶18

Learned APP on the basis of instructions received by the Investigating officer, who is present in the Court, has submitted that the applicant/accused has not played any incriminating role and no property is to be recovered from him, therefore, the applicant/accused was released on interim bail. Learned APP, in view of this instructions, submits to the order of this Court.

¶19

Considering the role played by the applicant/accused, I confirm the

¶20

order of interim bail and attendance of the applicant/accused is not

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

908.ABA1102_2014.doc

¶23

required at the police station, as the charge sheet is filed.

¶24

The Application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

¶25

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

3 of 3

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Namdev Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sovind Nathuji Chandewar Vs Miss. Ketki Sovind Chandewar and Anr.

Majidkhan Khalilkhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Suryabhan Nandurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Pandurang Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubhangi Sambhaji Tikode Vs the State of Maharashtra