Allowed

Dinesh Parshuram Waigankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Jul 2015BA/423/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bombay granted bail to an appellant accused of forgery offences under IPC. The court considered the applicant's antecedents and the seizure of evidence while imposing strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and re-offending.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing surety bond of Rs. 30,000/- and abiding by specified conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

Dinesh Parshuram Waigankar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

ba.423.2015_916.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.423 OF 2015

¶5

Dinesh Parshuram Wagankar ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr.R.S. Bidkar for the Applicant Mr.S.S. Pednekar APP, for Respondent – State Mr.Santosh Jadhav, API, Pnavel City Police station – present

¶7

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE: JULY 3, 2015

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused was arrested in connection with C.R. No.378 of 2014 which was registered at Panvel City police station for the offences punishable under sections 4675, 467, 468, 474 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of one Pravin Vilas Dandawate, Chief Manager, Panvel branch of the State Bank of India.

¶11

It is the case of the prosecution that the on 13.10.2014, the coaccused Ganesh Lalaram Kori produced one fake FDR of Rs.100 crores of one Snehal group and company. The complainant suspected the genuineness of that FDR and on verification, found that it was fake. Therefore, he lodged the complaint. During the course of investigation, the police found involvement of the applicant/accused and hence, the

¶12

1 / 3

¶13

ba.423.2015_916.doc

¶14

applicant was arrested on 3.12.2014 and since then, the applicant/accused is in prison. Hence, this bail application.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the applicant is innocent. He has not committed any offence. Moreover, whatever documents and the material as are allegedly used for forgery are already seized by the police. He further submitted that recovery panchanama of the material so also the other documents which are seized by the police on 4.12.2014 is doubtful as the same set of panchas are used continuously in all the panchanamas by the police. Moreover, memorandum was recorded on 15.32 hrs. The remand dated 4.12.2014 discloses that the learned Judge has noted down the accused was produced before him at 3.20 pm. So this memorandum is also manipulated. He, therefore, prays for bail.

¶16

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. He submitted that the panchanama is not manipulated. As per the instructions given by the Investigating Officer, the distance between the police station and the Panvel Court is hardly one kilometre and therefore, the panchanama is not manipulated.

¶17

Perused the FIR. Prima facie, the involvement of the applicant/accused in the offence is seen from the record. However, it is the offence of forgery. On query, it is found that there are criminal

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

ba.423.2015_916.doc

¶20

antecedents to the record of the applicant/accused. All the documents and the material which were allegedly used for the forgery is seized by the police on 4.12.2014. Further, chargesheet is filed. Considering this, I am inclined to grant bail on the following conditions:

¶21

i) The applicant/accused shall be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶22

ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶23

iii) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of offence much less the offence of fraud and forgery, while on bail;

¶24

iv) The applicant shall furnish his residential address to the Investigating Officer and attend all the Court dates;

¶25

v) In the event of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for forthwith cancellation of bail.

¶26

Bail application is disposed of on the above terms.

¶27

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶28

3 / 3

Dinesh Parshuram Waigankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Parshuram Waigankar 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

Ujawala Pramod Khope @ Ujawala Laxman Vankar Vs Pramod Purshottam Khope

Pundalik Mukund Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandkumar Dharma Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manpreetsingh Manmohansingh Vadhera Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Dattatray Kshirsagar @ Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra