The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Murlidhar Vitthal More, who faced charges of forgery regarding fabricated bank guarantee bond letters that caused financial loss to a construction company, holding custody necessary to investigate the offense.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
902 ABA 930 OF 2014
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.930 OF 2014.
Murlidhar Vitthal More .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
Mr. Nitin P. Dalvi, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.
CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATE : 13th August, 2014
P.C.
Application is moved for anticipatory
bail as the applicant is facing charges under
Section 470, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the
Indian penal Code at Shahupuri Police Station,
Kolhapur under C.R.No.192 of 2014. The incident of forgery has taken place between 23.11.2013 to 2.4.2014 at Sales Tax office at Kasba Bawada Kolhapur. F. I.R. was registered at the instance of one Sachin Arun Joshi, who
was working as Deputy Commissioner of Sales
Tax. He received two letters dated 23.12.2013
and 2.4.2014 from Assistant Commissioner of
Page No.1 of 6
Sales Tax, Mr. Nitin Shaligram regarding
return of bonds of bank guarantee executed by B.T. Patil & Sons Construction Company, Belgaum, and they were transferred from Bombay to Kolhapur. On enquiry he found that those two letters were not sent from the office of the Sales Tax office at Bombay. They were informed that those two letters were bogus. So
also signatures which shown of Nitin Shaligram, were not actually signed by him. Thus, it is found that those two letters were sent from Mumbai by some unknown persons. It is the case of the prosecution that some unknown person has sent those letters with a view that B. T. Patil and Company should get
benefits and hence he gave F.I.R.
has submitted that the applicant accused is innocent. Nobody was going to be benefitted out of these two letters. He submitted that at
the most it was B . T. Patil and Company would
Page No.2 of 6
902 ABA 930 OF 2014
have benefitted and no actual transaction has taken place pursuant to these two letters. He submitted that there is Outward No. of Bombay Sales Tax Office and so also there is entry in the Inward register at Kolhapur office. It is necessary for the police to investigate as to how there is outward number and inward number from the concerned offices, as the applicant was not working in the Sales Tax office at the relevant time. He further submitted that considering contents of the letters sent, it was only on enquiry found that security bonds were sent from Bombay office to Kolhapur office and therefore, the applicant accused has not committed any offence as alleged. He submitted that there were some antecedents against him. However, considering contents in the F.I.R. and the charges made against applicant accused, he has not committed any offecnce and no act is attributed to him in the F.I.R.
Page No.3 of 6
902 ABA 930 OF 2014
application. She submitted that she relied on those original letters. So also relied on the statements of witnesses. She submitted that
the applicant accused was also working in the Sales Tax Office in Sales Tax Department.
However, he was dismissed from the service and then started working as Consultant with B.T.
Patil & Sons Construction Company. She submitted that by issuing such letters, applicant accused could not have been benefited as he was in the employment of B.T.
Patil, who would ultimately be beneficiary. She further submitted that there are criminal cases pending against applicant accused. They are C.R.Nos.150 of 1988, 269 of 1994 and 25 of
2012, all registered at Necknur Police Station. She further submitted that no
anticipatory bail was granted to the present applicant in C.R.No.25 of 2012. The applicant
accused is still absconding in that case, so
Page No.4 of 6
902 ABA 930 OF 2014
also not remaining present before this Court.
She submitted that these letters were not signed by Nitin Shaligram and were not sent from the Bombay office officially. Thus the custody of applicant is required to find out
how the offence was committed and the manner in which offence was committed.
statement of witnesses. There are statements of Mr. Balasaheb Bharamgonda Patil, Omprakash
Shankar Prabhu. It appears that he was interested in getting bonds returned by B.T.
Patil and Company executed by the company, as the company was very much insisting in getting those bonds cancelled. If this would have been
possible, then the company, so also applicant accused would have been benefitted by the Directors of the company. The company was
suffering heavy financial losses due to these bonds. There is prima facie evidence that no
other than this company and applicant accused
Page No.5 of 6
were insisting in getting movement of the bank guarantee bonds and cancellation of the bonds. However, as statement of Nitin Shaligram discloses that he had not signed those letters, prima facie there is case, hence custody of the applicant is required. Applicant is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Application is rejected.
(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Page No.6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when there is prima facie evidence of forgery in bank guarantee bonds causing financial loss to a company.
Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the pending criminal cases and the facts disclosed in the FIR.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
MURLIDHAR VITTHAL MORE
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
