Allowed

Mahananda Gajanan Pailwan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016APPLN/1417/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad considered a criminal reference application for bail under Section 438 CrPC. The applicant, a woman facing charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC regarding a chit fund dispute, was granted bail. The interim protection previously accorded by the court was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted vide order dated 17/03/2016 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

Mahananda Gajanan Pailwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 Cr. Appln. 1417-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1417 OF 2016

¶4

Mahananda Gajanan Pailwan,
Age : 43 years, Occ.: Housewife,
R/o Bhavani Road, Tuljapur,
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra,

¶7

2. Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad

¶8

3.Dr. Minal Santosh Pawar,
age : 31 Years,
Occu.: Medical Practitioner,
r/o Behind Panchayat Samiti,
Tuljapur, Tal. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate
for the applicant
Mr. U.S. Mote, A.P.P. for the respondents-State

¶10

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 18/04/2016

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

2.The present applicant, who is apprehending

¶14

arrest at the hands of Tuljapur Police Station, Dist.

¶15

2 Cr. Appln. 1417-2016

¶16

Osmanabad in crime no. 58 of 2016 for the offences
punishable under section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, is praying for her release on bail, in the event
of her arrest.

¶17

3.The allegations would show that the present
applicant being the operator of certain benefit chit,
had, out of an amount of Rs.1,75,380/-, paid certain
amount in cash, however some balance amount remained to
be paid and the cheque issued by the present applicant
towards the same, had bounced. Therefore, the offence
came to be registered.

¶18

4.Mr. Salunke h/f Mr. Golewar, learned counsel
for the applicant submits that in-fact, at the most it
would be a case of civil nature and the custodial
interrogation of the present applicant would not be
required.

¶19

5.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application.

¶20

6.Considering all the facts on record that the
present applicant is a woman and in the background of
the transactions, the interim protection granted to the

¶21

3 Cr. Appln. 1417-2016

¶22

applicant by this Court, vide order dated 17/03/2016 is

¶23

hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

¶24

7.Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

[M.T. JOSHI]
 JUDGE

¶26

arp/

Mahananda Gajanan Pailwan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahananda Gajanan Pailwan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raosaheb Vishwanath Tagad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Musakhan Vahedkhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak S/O. Ambadas Gujrathi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meenabai Madhukar Patil Vs the Stae of Maharashtra

Pralhad S/O Govind Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tejaswini Kailasrao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra