Allowed

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Sept 2014ABA/987/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction disposed of an anticipatory bail application moved by two accused persons. They faced charges for offences under sections 188, 408, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code relating to the fraudulent operation of a SETU office. The court was satisfied that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application allowed by confirming interim bail; attendance at police station till filing of chargesheet.

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse and Anr. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.987.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.987 OF 2014

¶5

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse 2. Ranjeetsingh Shamsingh Thakur ... Applicants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.K.B. Rajput for the Applicants Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP, for Respondent – State

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The application is moved for anticipatory bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges under sections 188, 408, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. One Vinayak G. Chavan gave report to the police pursuant to which the offence was registered at C.R. No.3069 of 2014 at Sadar bazar police station, Solapur on 3.7.2014. The offence pertains to fraudulent and mal-functioning of SETU office. The applicant/accused No.1 Mangesh had entered into an agreement with the Collector of Solapur to run the SETU office on 10.12.2010 and applicant/accused No.2 is an employee of the applicant/accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that many complaints were received in respect of exploitation by agents and touts working illegally in the SETU office at Solapur.

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

aba.987.2014.doc

¶15

Therefore, the informant, who is working as an officer in the Collector office, gave a surprise visit and enquired about the working of the SETU Centre with the public and also verified the documents. At that time, it was noticed that one person by name Tohit Shabbir Sayyed, was in possession of 17 acknowledgements of the applications submitted for certified copies of various documents. As normally one person does not apply for so many orders for himself, enquiry was made in depth and it was found that though agents and touts are not allowed to carry on any work or activity in the SETU office, as per the orders of the Collector dated 22.8.2013 and 13.6.2014, the SETU Manager i.e., the applicant/accused No.1 and his employee, the applicant/accused NO.2 both violated these orders and were having all business contacts with the agents and touts in the area. Thus, this act of the applicants/accused have led to interference and monetary exploitation of the public and, therefore, FIR was lodged.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that as on today, the contract of applicant/accused No.1 is terminated by the Collector and he is not running the SETU office. Moreover, he is blacklisted by the Collector. He has, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation is not required and they are ready to cooperate with the police.

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

aba.987.2014.doc

¶19

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application and submitted that both the applicants/accused are not cooperating with the police in the investigation, their custody is required.

¶20

It appears that the police have collected 17 to 18 acknowledgements and the case depends on the documentary evidence, the police may collect it and also interrogate the applicants/accused thoroughly at any time. Considering the nature of the offence, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicants/accused is not required.

¶21

Hence, I confirm the interim bail dated 30.7.2014 with the same terms and conditions, however, the attendance at the police station shall be till the filing of chargesheet.

¶22

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶24

3 / 3

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse 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

Suresh Tanaji Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashokkk Govind Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Krishnath Ambekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Yogesh Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ashok Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Namdeo Ghodake Vs the State of Maharashtra