Allowed

Anand Vithoba Jagdale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2014ABA/877/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed anticipatory bail application filed by an accused facing charges of forgery and cheating. Granted based on parity with a codefendant who is a government servant, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; bail granted on furnishing ₹15,000 bond with sureties; applicant not to tamper with evidence and shall attend police station on specified days.

Anand Vithoba Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

12.ABA877_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 877 OF 2014

¶6

Anand Vithoba Jagdale … Applicant vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Uday P. Warunjkar i/b. Mr. D.D. Rananaware, Advocate for the applicants.

¶9

Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶10

I.O. Mr. P.V. Jadhav, P.I., Waduj Police Station, Satara.

¶11

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 11^th August, 2014.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This second Application is moved for anticipatory bail by the

¶14

applicant/accused, who is facing charges under sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Registration Act and also under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 2 of 2014 registered with Vaduj Police Station.

¶15

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused along with his nephew/coaccused presented false 7/12 extract to one Satara District Central Cooperative Bank, Vaduj and obtained loan of Rs.30 lakhs in the year 2012.

¶16

This is the second prearrest bail made by this applicant/accused, as

¶17

the earlier application for prearrest bail was rejected by the order dated

1 of 3

12.ABA877_2014.doc

30^th June, 2014.

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that in the earlier order, this Court has granted prearrest bail to coaccused Kishore Shankar Ingale on the only ground that coaccused is the Government servant and he would be suspended immediately. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that at that time, it was not pointed out to this Court that the applicant/accused is teacher in Government aided school and therefore, on the ground of parity, he be also granted prearrest bail. He further submitted that during the span of two years, the applicant/accused, who is a principal borrower, has repaid Rs.23 lakhs with interest to the bank and bank has no grievance against him till today.

¶22

Learned APP opposed the application. She submitted that now the Investigating officer has added section of forgery in the charge. The applicant/accused has placed all forged 7/12 extracts and therefore, he is not to be given prearrest bail on the ground of parity.

¶23

In the earlier order, I have observed that considering the documents and allegations made in the FIR, prima facie there is an offence of forgery committed by the applicants/accused and the offence under registration act is also committed. However, the prearrest bail was granted only on

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

12.ABA877_2014.doc

¶26

the ground that he being the Government servant and if at all he is arrested, he would be suspended. The transfer order by the Deputy Director of Education in respect of employment of the present applicant in Government aided school is produced, which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. In the present case, as the documents are produced showing that school where he is working is a Government aided school, which is confirmed by the Investigating officer who is present in the Court and therefore, on the ground of parity, prearrest bail is granted to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(i) Application is allowed.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(iv) The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between

¶32

7 p.m. to 8 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet and shall

¶33

cooperate the investigating officer.

¶34

3 of 3

¶35

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Anand Vithoba Jagdale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Vithoba Jagdale 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

Kalyan Jangali Torane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Pramod Samant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shravansingh Rajendrasingh Sodha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanumant Digambar Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Bhagwan Madane Vs the State of Maharashtra