Allowed

Harsh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Aug 2014ABA/859/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges of forgery and cheating. The court held that since the amount was disputed and the acknowledgement was on a forged copy, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Bail on PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with sureties. No tampering with evidence. Cooperation with investigation required.

Harsh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.859.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.859OF 2014

¶5

Haresh Kumar Sharma ... Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.H.S. Venegavkar i/b Ms.Sweta Nijhawan for the Applicant Ms.Alpa Javeri, APP, for Respondent – State

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: AUGUST 5, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The applicant is facing charges under section 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Registrar, Satara Military School, is the informant. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused is the father of a student of the school. He did not pay the school fees of his son and therefore, the school authorities sent him a letter dated 8.11.2013 to pay the amount of Rs.9665/-. Thereafter, the authorities by another letter dated 22.5.2013 and asked him to pay the fees. However, the applicant/accused sent a letter dated 26.5.2014 informing that he has already paid fees of his son of Rs.9,665/- and alongwith that letter, he sent a photocopy of the document showing the signature of the complainant that he has received the said letter. The complainant has informed that the signature appearing on the photocopy if forged because he never

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

aba.859.2014.doc

¶15

signed and such amount was never received. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused has prepared a forged stamp and also forged the signature of the informant showing that the amount is received by the school. Hence, this complaint.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent. He has already deposited the amount of Rs.9,665/- towards the school fees of his son.

¶17

Learned Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the original acknowledgement is necessary for investigation and that is to be recovered.

¶18

On perusal of the FIR and after going through the documents and especially the photocopy of the forged document, it appears prima facie that there is some offence committed by the applicant/accused, however, it appears that he has deposited the amount of Rs.9,665/- and it appears that the acknowledgement is of the photocopy of the seal and signature. Thus, I do no find any need for custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused.

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

aba.859.2014.doc

¶21

Accordingly, the application is allowed with the following conditions:

¶22

i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶23

ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶24

Iii) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station, as and when called, till the filing of chargesheet.

¶25

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

3 / 3

Harsh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Kumar Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Ramchandra Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanumant @ Dada Nivrutti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailendra Dashratha Kawanekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Navnath Mirgane Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajashri Kailas Zodage Vs the State of Maharashtra