Allowed

Swati Suhas Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Aug 2014ABA/933/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appellate jurisdiction, the High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a government employee accused of corruption under the IPC, granting interim bail terms.

What did the court decide?

Bail applied for is granted on the conditions that the applicant attends the police station when required and does not tamper with evidence or commit any offence.

Swati Suhas Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

4 ABA 933 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.933 OF 2014.

¶4

Swati Suhas Gaikwad .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Jaydeep Mane, for the Applicant. Smt. A.A.Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 27^th August, 2014

¶7

P.C.

¶8

Application is moved for anticipatory

¶9

bail by this applicant accused who is facing prosecution under Section 406, 409, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Mohol Police Station, District: Solpaur,

¶10

under C.R.No.187 of 2014. One Sanjay Namdeo Altekar gave report to the police alleging

¶11

that the Government of India has launched a

¶12

scheme for “Nirmal Bharat Ahiyan” with a view

¶13

to construct toilets for each hand every

¶14

house, and has sanctioned & approved an amount

¶15

Page No.1 of 3

¶16

4 ABA 933 OF 2014

¶17

of Rs.1,29,43,014/- to Mohol Taluka and the

¶18

said amount was deposited with Block Development Officer of Mohol Taluka. Under the scheme every beneficiary who has constructed toilet in his house is entitled to Rs.4,600/-

¶19

and to increase the awareness the importance of toilet. The applicant accused is Government servant and was appointed as Extension Officer, at village Wafle. It is alleged that the applicant made recommendation on applications.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant

¶21

has submitted that she is innocent and there

¶22

is no any incriminating role against her. There are no allegations against her. She is to be protected.

¶23

The learned APP has submitted that the applicant has only recommended in respect of giving amount to each beneficiaries. The

¶24

entire amount of grant is to be deposited in

¶25

the account of concerned Gram Panchayat. She

¶26

Page No.2 of 3

¶27

4 ABA 933 OF 2014

¶28

has submitted this is only role attributed to the applicant accused.

¶29

counsel and as there is no incriminating role against applicant, I am inclined to allow this application. The interim order dated

¶30

16.07.2014 is confirmed. The applicant shall

¶31

attend the concerned police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer and

¶32

shall not commit any such offence. The applicant shall not tamper with the

¶33

prosecution evidence.

¶34

Page No.3 of 3

Swati Suhas Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Suhas Gaikwad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimal Margu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudarshan @ Nana Subhash Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baliram Ramchandra Atkale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amar @ Amarsingh Chandrahar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bipin Dhudku Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hazrat Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra