Allowed

Dilip Sitaram Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014ABA/869/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail for accused persons facing forgery charges under the Indian Penal Code. The court noted a pending civil dispute regarding the genuineness of documents related to ancestral property and held that custody was not required.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; accused to furnish surety bonds, attend police station weekly, and not leave India without permission.

Dilip Sitaram Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2 ABA 869 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.869 OF 2014

¶4

Dilip Sitaram Kale

¶5

Pratap Sitaram Kale, 3. Dadasaheb Sitaram Kale .. Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶6

Mr. V. V. Purvant, for the Applicants. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 17^th September, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Application is moved for anticipatory

¶11

bail as the applicants accused are facing charges for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 467, 420, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶12

registered under C.R. No.159 of 2014, at Waduj

¶13

Police Station, Khatav, District : Satara. It

¶14

is the case of the prosecution that the

¶15

applicants accused are the real brothers of

¶16

the original complainant. Their father Sitaram

¶17

Page No.1 of 4

¶18

2 ABA 869 OF 2014

¶19

Rama Kale inherited the landed property and

¶20

his children have right in the property. The father died on 31.7.1991 and thereafter Hausabai Kale, the mother of the complainant

¶21

and the applicants accused became the owner of

¶22

the said property. She died on 5^th February, 2010. It is the case of the prosecution that

¶23

the applicants accused with ill-intention to

¶24

grab the property have forged the partition deed and have committed the offence of forgery.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicant

¶26

accused submits that the applicants are innocent and they have not committed any offence. There is civil dispute pending before the Civil Court.

¶27

application.

¶28

Perused the F.I.R. and the documents presented alongwith it. It discloses that the

¶29

parties are litigating in the Civil Court in

¶30

Page No.2 of 4

¶31

2 ABA 869 OF 2014

¶32

respect of their ancestral property. The allegations and counter allegations are made in respect of creating forged documents. The issue of genuineness of those documents is pending before the Civil Court. In view of

¶33

this custody of the applicants accused is not required. Hence the application is allowed on the following grounds :-

¶34

Order

¶35

i) In the event of applicants' arrest in above crime, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/ by each of them with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.15,000/-by each of them.

¶36

ii) The applicants shall attend the

¶37

concerned police station on every Thursday between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet.

¶38

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

¶39

Page No.3 of 4

¶40

2 ABA 869 OF 2014

¶41

iv) The applicants 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

v) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.

¶43

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶44

Page No.4 of 4

Dilip Sitaram Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Sitaram Kale and Ors. 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

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Ashok Channapa Bhasme and Ors.

Sagar Jaysingh Devare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yeshwantrao Maruti Aahir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Anil Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Dattatray Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra