Allowed

Vishwambhar Vithal Singanwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jun 2015APPLN/2371/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Finding that the B report yielded no incriminating material against the applicant, the court granted bail on execution of a P.R. bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount regarding cheating and forgery charges.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of P.R. bond of Rs. 5,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount.

Vishwambhar Vithal Singanwad Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

G.A.Ghule [P.A.]

¶2

cri.appln. 2371.15..sxw

¶3

1/2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2371 OF 2015.

¶6

VISHWAMBHAR VITHAL SINGANWAD. VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

¶8

Appearance =>

¶9

Mr. Ravindra B.Narvade Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. U.S. Mote, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra.

¶11

CORAM : V.M. Deshpande, J. DATE : 22^nd June, 2015.

¶12

Per Court :-

¶13

Present Criminal Application is filed by the Applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, since he is apprehending his arrest in connection with CR No.30/0/2013 registered with Police Station, Mukhed, Taluka – Mukhed, District - Nanded for the offences punishable under Section/s 420, 409, 417, 462, 463, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

[2] Heard Mr. Ravindra B.Narvade Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. U.S. Mote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

Mr. U.S. Mote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that he has written instructions with him to make a statement

¶16

2/2

¶17

cri.appln. 2371.15..sxw

¶18

that during the course of investigation nothing is found against the present Applicant and, in fact, the Investigating Officer has prepared “B” summary report and it is sent for approval before the S.D.P.O. Statement is accepted.

¶19

[3] In view of the fact that there is no incriminating material available against the present Applicant, present Application is required to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed. Hence I pass the following order :-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) Criminal Application is allowed.

¶22

(ii) In the event of arrest, Applicant - VISHWAMBHAR VITHAL SINGANWAD shall be released on anticipatory bail on he executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand.] with one solvent surety in the like amount, in connection with CR No.30/0/2013 registered with Police Station, Mukhed, Taluka – Mukhed, District - Nanded for the offences punishable under Section/s 420, 409, 417, 462, 463, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iIi) With this Criminal Application is allowed and same is disposed of, accordingly.

¶24

(V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)

Vishwambhar Vithal Singanwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwambhar Vithal Singanwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shriniwas S/O Pandharinath Anantwar Vs Sanjay S/O Dattatray Kulkarni and Ors.

Rajabhau Raghunath Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gopal Radhesham Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod S/O Prakash Jagtap and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tanaji S/O Ramrao Poptphale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Baburao Phulari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.