Allowed

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Sept 2014ABA/1180/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail or pre-arrest bail to the applicant in a cheating case involving construction payments, citing parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail, subject to depositing a security sum and complying with standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicent granted pre-arrest bail upon depositing Rs.40,000/- and furnishing bonds with sureties, subject to conditions regulating witness interaction and travel.

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

907 aba 1180 of 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1180 OF 2014

¶4

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, i/by Ms. Anand S. Patil, for the Applicant.

¶6

Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 12^th September, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This application is moved for bail on

¶11

the ground of party as his earlier application has been rejected by this Court, by order dated 8^th August, 2014. However, by order dated 5^th September, 2014, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to other two co-accused persons namely Gajanan S. Holkar and Kashimali Gafoorshe Makandar, in the same crime No.102 for offences under Section 409, 420, 469 read

¶12

with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶13

Page No.1 of 5

¶14

907 aba 1180 of 2014

¶15

registered with Akkalkor Police Station, District: Solapur.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant accused has pointed out that the applicant accused is also Junior Engineer like Mr. Holkar and this Court while granting anticipatory bail to Holkar, has considered the fact that the statement of Maliddha Ishwarkatti, who was the beneficiary was not recorded.

¶17

In this application, the learned APP has now produced the statements of three persons where they have stated that the applicant Birajdar has demanded Rs.4,000/- and they have paid Rs.4,000/- each to Mr. Birajdar and they got the amounts before construction of the house. The learned APP submitted that if the applicant is protected by pre-arrest bail, then he is to be directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- because the present applicant

¶18

accused, has disbursed two instalemtns out of

¶19

Page No.2 of 5

¶20

907 aba 1180 of 2014

¶21

three instalemnts and Mr. Holkar and co-

¶22

accused who are prosecuted have disbursed one instalemtent i.e. third instalment.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicant accused has submitted that the statement of

¶24

these three persons which are pointed out by the learned APP, are not of the witnesses, but

¶25

they are co-accused before this Court and

¶26

there statements cannot be read.

¶27

ground that on the forms produced by the

¶28

Investigating Officer, his signature was found and the proposals for getting amount from the Government were processed through him and the

¶29

co-accused. However, the fact that the

¶30

statements were of the co-accused were slipped due to oversight. Further the similar acts

¶31

were done by the co-accused to whom pre-arrest

¶32

bail has been granted. I do consider the

¶33

submission of the learned counsel for the

¶34

Page No.3 of 5

¶35

907 aba 1180 of 2014

¶36

applicant accused and on the ground of parity present applicant is also to be protected by pre-arrest bail. I, therefore grant prearrest bail on the condition of depositing Rs.40,000/- and on the following terms:-

¶37

Order

¶38

i) In the event of applicant’s arrest

¶39

in above crime, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/-with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.20,000/-

¶40

ii) The applicant shall deposit Rs.40,000/- in the office of B.D.O. Akkalkot without prejudice within two weeks from today. The learned Trial Judge may decide about it at the end of trial. The amount is to be kept in the Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank.

¶41

iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating Officer, till filing of the chargesheet.

¶42

iv) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and

¶43

Page No.4 of 5

¶44

907 aba 1180 of 2014

¶45

shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶46

v) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶47

vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.

¶48

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶49

Page No.5 of 5

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar 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

Bhaskar Suryabhan Nandurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Pandurang Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra