Allowed

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014ABA/875/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicant, a stamp vendor accused of preparing a bogus partition deed. The court held that custody was not required and allowed bail subject to conditions including surrendering specimen signatures, attending police regularly, and not leaving the country.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bonds with sureties; conditions include specimen signature delivery, Thursday attendance, no witness tampering, and no travel abr

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3 ABA 875 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.875 OF 2014.

¶4

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Rajram V. Bansode, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 17^th September, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Application is moved for anticipatory

¶10

bail as the applicant accused is facing

¶11

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 applicant accused is a stamp vendor. There is dispute between Dilip Kale and his real

¶15

brothers in respect of share in their

¶16

ancestral property. It is alleged that a bogus

¶17

Page No.1 of 3

¶18

3 ABA 875 OF 2014

¶19

partition deed was prepared by the applicant

¶20

accused who is a stamp vendor. He made some endorsement on the said partition deed in respect of the distribution of share of

¶21

deceased mother. Hence the offence is

¶22

registered.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicant

¶24

accused submits that the applicant accused has

¶25

made endorsement on the information given and

¶26

he is innocent. He will co-operate the police.

¶27

He is ready to give specimen signature and specimen handwriting to the police.

¶28

application.

¶29

Perused the F.I.R. and the documents

¶30

presented alongwith it. In view of the role attributed to the applicant accused, I am of the view that the custody of the applicant accused is not required. Hence the application is allowed on the following grounds :-

Page No.2 of 3

3 ABA 875 OF 2014

Order

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

¶35

ii) The applicant shall give specimen handwriting and specimen signature to the Investigating officer.

¶36

iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Thursday between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶40

Page No.3 of 3

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade 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

Dilip Sitaram Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Anil Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Dattatray Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra