Allowed

Ravindra Muppayya Mathapati v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jul 2014ABA/560/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed anticipatory bail in an application regarding prosecution for alleged forgery of a caste certificate used to secure employment. The appointment was based on a false certificate invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The court found no prima facie case of forgery and granted bail. Bail is subject to conditions including cooperating with police to recover the original certifi

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including bail bond, cooperation with police in recovering the original caste certificate, and strict adherence against witness tampering or induction.

Ravindra Muppayya Mathapati Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

5 ABA 560 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.560 OF 2014.

¶4

Ravindra Muppayya Mathapathi .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. S. G. Kudle, i/by Mr. Kudle Mahamad Shakir Shakur, for the Applicant.

¶6

Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 09^th July, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This application is moved for

¶11

anticipatory bail as the applicant accused is

¶12

prosecuted for the offences punishable under

¶13

Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11(1)(A) and (B) of the

¶14

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

¶15

Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),

¶16

Nomedic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and

¶17

Special Backward Category (Regulation of

¶18

Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, registered under C.R. NO.407 of

¶19

Page No.1 of 4

¶20

5 ABA 560 OF 2014

¶21

2013 with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur.

¶22

It is the case of the complainant that the applicant accused has got an appointment as Transport Inspector in Solapur Municipal Corporation on the basis of false certificate dated 1.4.1985 that he belongs to Beda Jangam caste and obtained job and got himself appointed on the said post in the reserved category from 1^st April, 1985. Thereafter he was given promotion in 1996 and also further promotion in September,2012. However, the

¶23

Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated his caste certificate on 30.10.2013 and directed to lodge complaint against applicant accused and recovery of original certificate. Pursuant to

¶24

this offence has been registered against applicant.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicant accused has submitted that the applicant accused has not committed any offence much

¶26

less the offence of forgery. His caste

¶27

Page No.2 of 4

¶28

5 ABA 560 OF 2014

¶29

certificate was invalided and there is no forgery in the said certificate.

¶30

application.

¶31

Perused the complaint. Perused the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Committee has invalidated the said Certificate. Perused the photocopy of said Certificate. Prima facie no forgery emerges and therefore, application is allowed on the following terms:-

¶32

Order

¶33

i) In the event of applicant’s arrest in above crime, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.15,000/-,

¶34

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

¶35

iii) The applicant is directed co-

¶36

operate the police in obtaining

¶37

Page No.3 of 4

¶38

5 ABA 560 OF 2014

¶39

original caste certificate.

¶40

iv) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

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;

¶42

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

¶43

5. The application is disposed of

¶44

accordingly.

¶45

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶46

Page No.4 of 4

Ravindra Muppayya Mathapati v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Muppayya Mathapati 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

Bapurao Suresh Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajjan Jaywant Awatade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Namdev Ughade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammadali @ Popat Alishah Irani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Rambachan @ Bholu Murli Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip Babu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra