Allowed

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Sept 2014ABA/1162/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail applications filed by government officials accused of misappropriating funds under the Indira Awas Gharkul Yojana scheme. Granting bail was made on terms including surety bonds, depositing money without prejudice, and weekly police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Applicants granted anticipatory bail conditional upon furnishing Rs.20,000 bond with sureties, depositing Rs.20,000 each in BOD office, and weekly police reporting till charge sheet.

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2.ABA1074_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1074 OF 2014

¶5

Gajanan Siddhappa Holkar … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1162 OF 2014

¶8

(Not on board, taken on board)

¶9

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶10

Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Sumit S. Kothari and Sanjukta A. Dey, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State in both the matters. I.O. Mr. P.T. Jarhad, Akkalkot (South) Police Station, Solapur present.

¶11

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 5^th September, 2014.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

These two Applications are moved for anticipatory bail under

¶14

section 438 of the Cr. P.C. These Applications are heard together, as both the applicants are facing charges under sections 409, 420, 468 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 102 of 2014 of Akkalkot Police Station, Solapur. Pursuant to the report given on 30^th June, 2014 by Gafar Amir Shaikh, Junior Engineer, an offence was registered against the seven accused persons including these applicants/accused.

¶15

1 of 5

¶16

2.ABA1074_2014.doc

¶17

The offence has taken place in 2009. In 2007 the Government has launched a scheme of construction of houses and toilet under the scheme “Indira Awas Gharkul Yojana”. The Government gave grants to construct the houses. Four coaccused were eligible to get the benefit of the scheme of Rs.1,12,500/. The entire amount was given to four beneficiaries in three installments. While disbursing the third installment, it was necessary to physically verify whether the construction of the houses was done or not.

¶18

It is the case of the prosecution that though these four beneficiaries have not constructed the houses, false certificate were given by the applicants/accused and as the beneficiaries were not entitled to get their third installment, the same was disbursed. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused Makandar has given a false certificate of the construction of house and toilet of one coaccused Ishwarkatti and other applicant/accused Holkar, who was Sectional Engineer and Approving Authority has given sanction for the third installment. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the applicants/accused in connivance with the co accused especially the beneficiaries have issued false certificates and abused their official capacity and committed misappropriation of the Government money to the tune of Rs.1,12,500/.

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

2.ABA1074_2014.doc

¶21

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the applicants/accused are innocent. The applicant/accused Holkar has given explanation dated 7^th October, 2013 to the notice dated 16^th September, 2013 issued to him in respect of physical verification and valuation of the house of beneficiary coaccused Malsidh Ishwarkatti. The learned counsel submitted that as per the said explanation, a house was constructed in Gat No. 296 on the land of Hirappa by obtaining his consent. The house was constructed on 20 X 20 land by Ishwarkatti. The learned counsel submitted that the police did not physically verify the construction and existence of house after this explanation was given. The learned counsel further submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants/accused is not required and he is ready to deposit some amount without prejudice.

¶22

Learned APP opposed the Application. She submitted that the involvement of these applicants/accused along with the coaccused is evident. He further relied on the statement of the witnesses, spot panchnama dated 1^st July, 2014 and also the statement of son of Hirgappa Chambhar, who has stated that though the consent was obtained by the coaccused Ishwarkatti from his father for construction of house on their land, no such house was constructed till 2014.

¶23

Perused the statement of witnesses, statement of son of Hirgappa

¶24

3 of 5

¶25

2.ABA1074_2014.doc

¶26

Chambhar and spot panchanama, it shows that the house was never constructed and thus the certificate given by coaccused prima facie appears to be false. Prima facie there is a case against the applicants/accused. However, the offence has taken place in the year 2009 and FIR was registered in 2014, so the custodial interrogation of these applicants/accused are not required as the documents are available and the respective house are not constructed. Panchnama of non construction of the houses is also available with the police. In view of this and in view of the statement of learned counsel for the applicants/accused, the applications for anticipatory bail are allowed on the following terms and conditions:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicants/accused i.e.

¶29

Gajanan S. Holkar and Kashimali Gafoorshe Makandar be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/ each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶30

(ii) The applicants/accused shall deposit Rs.20,000/ each in the office of BOD, Akkalkot without prejudice till 11^th September, 2014. The learned Trial Judge may decide about it at the end of trial. The said amount is to be kept in the

¶31

4 of 5

¶32

2.ABA1074_2014.doc

¶33

Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank.

¶34

(iii) The applicants/accused are directed to attend the police station on every Wednesday between 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet.

¶35

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶36

5 of 5

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar 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

Ganesh Yogesh Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ashok Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijendra Vishwanath Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zuber Nasir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramesh Ippar Vs the State of Maharashtra