Allowed

Chakradhar Vishwanath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Aug 2014ABA/615/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an intervention application by the original complainant. It also grants anticipatory bail to an accused facing charges of cheating and forgery for submitting a bogus degree certificate, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary as the evidence lies with the institute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions; intervention application allowed.

Chakradhar Vishwanath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2.ABA615_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2014 WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 387 OF 2014

¶7

Chakradhar Vishwanath Patil … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent And Kashinath Chudappa Pathrut … Applicant/Intervener

¶8

Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State.

¶9

Mr. Abhaysingh A. Shinde, Advocate for the applicant/intervener.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 6^th August, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Criminal Application No. 387 of 2014 filed by the original complainant for intervention is allowed.

¶13

Criminal Application No. 615 of 2014 is moved for prearrest bail,

¶14

as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as the offences is registered against him at C.R. No. 31 of 2014 at Mangalwedha Police Station, Pandharpur, District Solapur.

¶15

One Kashinath Chawdappa Pathrut, Secretary of Sant Damaji Apang

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

2.ABA615_2014.doc

¶18

Seva Mandal, Mangalwedha, District Solapur is the first informant. He has stated that the said institute is running a school for deaf and dumb children and the applicant/accused is appointed in the said school as a Special teacher since 1999. In the year 2004, he was appointed as a Headmaster of the said school. However, the required qualification for the said post is graduation. The applicant/accused enclosed a bogus marklist of B.A and relying on those documents, he was appointed as a headmaster. He was holding the charge of headmaster from 2004 to 2007 and thereafter the Institute found that the marklist produced by the applicant/accused was bogus. The said marklist was issued by Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeth. Hence, this complaint was lodged.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that he is trapped by the office bearers of the institute, as the institution does not give full payment to the teachers. Some portion of the monthly salary was taken by the institution against which the applicant/accused raised voice and therefore, he is falsely involved in this matter. The learned counsel further submitted that he has not submitted any marklist from Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeth.

¶20

Learned APP and learned counsel for the intervener opposed the application. Learned APP pointed out the letter written by Assistant

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

2.ABA615_2014.doc

¶23

Registrar of Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeth informing that the applicant/accused had never enrolled for the second and third year B.A. Course and he has only enrolled his name for first year B.A. and thus the marklist of third year of B.A. is bogus. The learned counsel for the intervener relied on the letter dated 7^th May, 2014 written by the applicant/accused to the Secretary of the Institution wherein he has mentioned that he is producing his marklist of B.A.

¶24

Perused the FIR and the documents produced. It appears prima facie that there is submission of forged documents to the Institution by the applicant/accused. However, the said document is with the Institute and that can be seized by the police. His custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be enlarged

¶27

on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/ with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶28

(ii) The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iii) The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

2.ABA615_2014.doc

¶32

station on every Tuesday between 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate the investigating officer.

¶33

The Application stands disposed of on above terms.

¶34

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶35

4 of 4

Chakradhar Vishwanath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakradhar Vishwanath Patil 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

Shankar Navnath Mirgane Vs State of Maharashtra

Harsh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surjit Sudhakar Pandav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Annasaheb Madhukar Kokate Vs the State of Maharashtra