Allowed

Amar @ Amarsingh Chandrahar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Aug 2014ABA/861/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application was made by an accused facing prosecution for fraud, cheating, and forgery under Section 406, 409, and 420 IPC relating to LPG scheme funds. The court confirmed an interim bail order dated July 7, 2014, on the same conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted by confirming an interim order dated July 7, 2014, on the same conditions.

Amar @ Amarsingh Chandrahar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3 ABA 861 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.861 OF 2014.

¶4

Amar @ Amarsingh Chandrahar .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. MahadeoA. Choudhari, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 27^th August, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Application is moved for anticipatory

¶10

bail by this applicant accused who is facing prosecution under Section 406, 409, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered

¶11

with Mohol Police Station, District: Solpaur,

¶12

under C.R.No.187 of 2014. One Sanjay Namdeo Altekar gave report to the police alleging

¶13

that the Government of India has launched a

¶14

scheme for “Nirmal Bharat Ahiyan” with a view

¶15

Page No.1 of 5

¶16

3 ABA 861 OF 2014

¶17

to construct toilets for each hand every

¶18

house, and has sanctioned & approved an amount

¶19

of Rs.1,29,43,014/- to Mohol Taluka and the

¶20

said amount was deposited with Block

¶21

Development Officer of Mohol Taluka. Under the scheme every beneficiary who has constructed

¶22

toilet in his house is entitled to Rs.4,600/-

¶23

and to increase the awareness the importance

¶24

of toilet. The applicant accused is working as

¶25

Cluster Resource Coordinator. He was appointed for two villages namely Vadwal and Pokhrapur

¶26

in Mohol Taluka. It is the case of the

¶27

prosecution that the officers working under the scheme in Mohol Taluka have committed

¶28

fraud by submitting the names of bogus

¶29

persons. So also submitted the forms on behalf

¶30

of beneficiaries to whom more than one time

¶31

grant was given. Thus, the persons were

¶32

repeated as beneficiaries though it was not

¶33

allowed. There were offences of forgery, fraud

¶34

and cheating and Government was deceived for

¶35

Page No.2 of 5

¶36

Rs.29,70,550/- overall. Gram-sevak. The Block

¶37

Development Officer, Junior Engineers, were involved in the said fraud. Hence offence was registered.

¶38

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as Cluster Resource Coordinator for Vadwal and

¶39

Pokhrapur and he has not committed any fraud.

¶40

He is innocent and no role is in fact

¶41

attributed to him. He is roped in the offence on the basis of suspicion. He pointed out that

¶42

as per noting dated 13.2.2014, it was mentioned that 61 + 10 families have constructed official toilets and therefore, they are to be paid Rs.4,600/- per family and

¶43

the amounts are to be deposited in the account of Gram Panchayat of village Shethphal and village Chikhali so that the concerned Gram Panchayats will disburse the amounts to the beneficiaries. The learned counsel pointed

¶44

out that the name of Amar Chavan as

¶45

Page No.3 of 5

¶46

3 ABA 861 OF 2014

¶47

Coordinator is mentioned and before his name

¶48

the signature is seen. However, it is not the

¶49

signature of applicant. His signature is forged by some other person, whose name is appearing in the statement of one Namdeo Kale

¶50

and Sunil Admile. The learned for the applicant submits that as per case of the applicant, applicant’s signature is forged by

¶51

one Hazrat Shaikh. He further submitted that

¶52

below the typed noting some hand-written words

¶53

are found as “Pokhrapur -34, Vadwal-6,

¶54

Malikpeth-3, i.e. 43 x 4600 = 1,97,800/-. The

¶55

learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not written by the applicant and he is innocent.

¶56

The learned APP on instructions from

¶57

the Investigating Officer, who is present, submits that no evidence is found against applicant accused.

¶58

Under such circumstances, the interim

¶59

order dated 7^th July,2014 granted by this Court

¶60

Page No.4 of 5

¶61

3 ABA 861 OF 2014 is confirmed on the same conditions. Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶62

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶63

Page No.5 of 5

Amar @ Amarsingh Chandrahar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar @ Amarsingh Chandrahar 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

Vimal Margu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudarshan @ Nana Subhash Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baliram Ramchandra Atkale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bipin Dhudku Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Swati Suhas Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hazrat Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra