Allowed

Fulsingh Shankar Chavan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Dec 2014ABA/907/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants accused of cheating and misappropriation of government subsidy funds under Sections 406, 409, and 420 IPC. The court recorded ad-interim orders and modified conditions to ensure frequent attendance at the Investigating Officer's office while rejecting claims of necessary custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; ad-interim orders confirmed with modification requiring applicants to attend the Investigating Officer on every first and third Mondays of the month until filing of charge-sheet.

Fulsingh Shankar Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

12-11-ABAG-1221.2014

¶2

sjs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1221 OF 2014

¶4

Miss Poonam Devidas Nikamble.... Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Mahadeo A. Chaudhari for the Applicant.
Ms P.P. Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent
State.

¶6

WITH

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.907 OF 2014

¶8

1. Fulsingh Shankar Chavan
2. Ganesh @ Ganpat Ramkrishna
 Kamble.... Applicants
Vs.
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶9

AND

¶10

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.834 OF 2014

¶11

Nityanand Madhav Kulkarni.... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶12

Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane for the Applicant
in ABA907 & 834 of 2014.

¶13

Ms A.A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent
State in ABA907 & 834 of 2014.

¶14

sjs

¶15

12-11-ABAG-1221.2014

¶16

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶17

DATED: DECEMBER 03, 2014

¶18

P.C:

¶19

1.By these applications respectively,

¶20

accused No.3, accused Nos.9 and 10 and accused
No.13 and who are respectively, a contract

¶21

worker, Accountants of Panchayat Samiti, Mohol
and Gram Sevak for Village Soundane in FIR
registered with Mohol Police Station, Solapur
Rural, Solapur accused of commission of
offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC have prayed for pre
arrest bail. By orders passed by my

¶22

predecessor, said applicants are protected by
adinterim orders of prearrest bail passed in

¶23

their favour.

¶24

2.Without detailing the matter stated in

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

sjs 12-11-ABAG-1221.2014

¶27

said FIR, it can be said that said FIR has been
filed for misappropriation and/or cheating of
an amount of Rs.29 lakhs allotted for Nirmal
Bharat Abhiyan implemented in Taluka Mohol. The
gravamen of said FIR is that instead of
distributing subsidy amount of Rs.4600/ to
incumbents who had constructed latrines in
pursuance to said scheme, thirteen accused
persons in furtherance of their common
intention had cheated the Government by
misutilizing the funds for obtaining the
amount for themselves instead of paying the
amount to persons entitled for subsidy due to
having constructed latrines. It is alleged in
said FIR that while implementing said scheme,

¶28

in some cases, proposal for the same

¶29

constructed latrines was twice given and twice
the amount was paid for construction of one
latrine. It is also alleged that in some cases,
without constructing any latrine, bogus

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

sjs 12-11-ABAG-1221.2014

¶32

proposals of latrines having been constructed
were given in names of fictitious persons not
residing in said village.

¶33

3.In pursuance to notice of the

¶34

applications issued, the prosecution has
tendered reply in each of the aforesaid
applications. The same are taken on record on
each of the applications. After taking into
consideration the matters stated in the replies
and the role allegedly played by each of the
applicants, i.e. the applicant in Anticipatory
Bail Application No.1221 of 2014 of
recommending names of persons from other
villages for whom she was not supposed to carry
out the work and having recommended for
depositing the subsidy amount in accounts of
Gram Panchayat, Wafale and Soundane; the

¶35

applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application
No.907 of 2014 without verifying the papers of

¶36

Page 4 of 7

¶37

sjs 12-11-ABAG-1221.2014

¶38

proposal having made the payments by drawing

¶39

cheques in favour of persons who were not
entitled; and the applicant in Anticipatory
Bail Application No.834 of 2014 having
withdrawn the subsidy amount and deposited it

¶40

in the account of Gram Panchayat and as such
the evidence regarding the said acts being
comprised in the documents, it is difficult to
perceive that there is any imperative need of
custodial interrogation of these applicants.
Learned APPs appearing in respective matters
have not brought to notice any particular

¶41

aspect of a crime having remained to be
investigatedforwhichthecustodial

¶42

interrogation of said applicants is necessary,
and apart from it, upon query, the learned APPs
having submitted of said applicants having
attended the I.O., as ordered by this Court,
and all the offences are triable by a
Magistrate and no nailing material being

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

sjs 12-11-ABAG-1221.2014

¶45

pointed by the prosecution regarding these

¶46

applicants having received the amounts which
are alleged to have been misappropriated or for

¶47

which the Government is said to be cheated by
them by making payments to improper persons,
discretion deserves to be exercised in favour
of grant of prearrest bail.

¶48

4.Resultantly, the applications are

¶49

allowed. Adinterim directions given in favour
of these applicants are confirmed on earlier
terms and conditions with the modification that

¶50

each of the applicants now shall attend the

¶51

I.O. on every first and third Mondays of the

¶52

month until filing of the chargesheet and so
also additionally on other day on which they

¶53

would be summoned by the I.O. for
investigation. Further more, they shall not
indulge in any activity of tampering,
threatening,coercing,intimidatingor

¶54

Page 6 of 7

¶55

sjs 12-11-ABAG-1221.2014

¶56

pressurizing the witnesses acquainted with the

¶57

facts regarding accusations against these
applicants in any manner and not misuse the
protection granted vide this order for fleeing

¶58

away or for committing any further offence.

¶59

5.The applications accordingly stand

¶60

disposed of.

¶61

Page 7 of 7

Fulsingh Shankar Chavan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fulsingh Shankar Chavan and Anr. 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

Suraj Maruti Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Vitthal Mullya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satappa Siddhu Ramanna Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samadhan Manohar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nityanand Madhav Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hari Ananta Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra