Disposed

Yeshwantrao Maruti Aahir v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Sept 2014ABA/1144/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed interim bail in anticipation of bail for the accused, who is a lawyer. The Court held that Investigating Officer was not present, though the applicant faces charges of cheating and forgery.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted till 16th September, 2014 confirmed for the applicant/accused to attend police station till filing of charge sheet.

Yeshwantrao Maruti Aahir Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

11.ABA1144_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2014

¶6

Yeshwantrao Maruti Aahir … Applicant

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶9

Mr. K.S. Patil i/b. Mr. Umesh Hanmantrao Pawar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 16^th September, 2014.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

On 2^nd September, 2014 the Investigating officer was not present,

¶14

therefore, as it was the first date, this Court vide its order dated 2^nd September, 2014 has granted interim bail to the applicant/accused till 16^th September, 2014. Today also Investigating officer is not present.

¶15

Learned APP while opposing the Application submitted that the applicant/accused is facing the charges of cheating and forgery. The applicant/accused is a lawyer and he has played fraud on the Court by not filing Vakalatnama in the Compromise Decree and by misrepresenting the facts, has obtained a Compromise Decree on 28^th January, 2005.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that after obtaining the Compromise Decree, the complainant has moved Miscellaneous Application no. 50/2005 before the Civil Court for recalling

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

11.ABA1144_2014.doc

¶19

the said Compromise Decree and action under section 340 be taken against the applicant/accused and coaccused. He submitted that the Civil Court has dismissed the said Application by order dated 2^nd September, 2010 and the said Compromise Decree was maintained. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Court, who rejected the Appeal and the High Court also by its order dated 25^th October, 2013 in Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2011 did not disturb the finding of the Civil Court. He submitted that the Applicant/accused, who is lawyer, as per the complainant has given a role that he appeared the Court without Vakalatnama.

¶20

Perused the FIR. The documents annexed to the Application discloses that the complainant has moved an Application for recalling the order of Compromise Decree and also prayed for initiating proceedings under section 340 of the Cr. P.C. However, the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Islampur by his detailed order dated 2^nd September, 2010 has rejected the Application. The said order is maintained. In view of this and as the Investigating officer is not present before the Court though sufficient time was given, I confirm the interim bail dated 2^nd September, 2014. The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station till filing of the charge sheet.

¶21

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶22

2 of 2

Yeshwantrao Maruti Aahir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yeshwantrao Maruti Aahir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaywant Prabhakar Bhande Vs State of Maharashtra

Amar Varisarya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhujangrao Bhaurao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Ashok Channapa Bhasme and Ors.

Sagar Jaysingh Devare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nisar Ahmed Yakub Mhaldar Vs the State of Maharashtra