Dismissed

Ashok S/O. Sampatrao Kutwal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2016APPLN/1561/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicant facing charges under IPC sections 406, 468, and 471 (cheating, criminal breach of trust) after allegations of misappropriating state acquisition compensation. High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, holding it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and dismissing it as the matter necessitates custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application dismissed; interim protection granted vide order dated 14th March 2016 stands vacated.

Ashok S/O. Sampatrao Kutwal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criapln1561-2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1561 OF 2016
(Ashok s/o Sampatrao Kutwal Vs. The State of
Maharashtra)

¶5

Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. U.S. Mote, A.P.P. for the respondent-State
Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate to assist the A.P.P.

¶6

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 06/04/2016

¶7

ORAL ORDER:

¶8

1. Heard both sides.

¶9

2.The present applicant, who is apprehending his
arrest at the hands of Tuljapur Police Station, District
Osmanabad in Crime No. 0068/2016 for the offences

¶10

punishable under section 420, 406, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, is praying for his release on bail,
in the event of his arrest.

¶11

3.The complaint filed by one Dattatraya Tatyaba
Kadam would show that agricultural land bearing Survey
No. 211/2 of Tuljapur was purchased for proposed Housing

¶12

Cooperative Society Limited and the present applicant
was the Chief Promotor of the same and 1 Hector and 59

¶13

2 criapln1561-2016

¶14

Rs of land was purchased in his name vide sale-deed

¶15

dated 2nd July, 1986. Before purchasing the land a joint
account with Bank of Maharashtra was opened. In all 47
members were there. By a cheque, the consideration from

¶16

the said joint account was paid and as such, the
proposed Suyog Housing Cooperative Society Limited,
Tuljapur became the owner and the present applicant as a
Chief Promotor was shown as purchaser.

¶17

.Thereafter, in the year 1990, 60 Rs of land was
acquired by the State for construction of a school. At
that time, however, the present applicant without
consulting with anybody, on 1st March, 1990, behind the
back of the members, got mutation entry in his own name

¶18

and thereafter, withdrew the compensation of Rs.

¶19

56,232/- and appropriated the same for himself.
Thereafter, many a times, the complainant as well as

¶20

many members of the proposed society used to pursue the

¶21

present applicant regarding the progress of the
registration of the society. The present applicant,

¶22

however, represented that as considerable land was
acquired by the State, the plotting could not be made

¶23

and divided between the members and therefore, on 7th

¶24

May, 1990, another land at village Hangarga (Tul),

¶25

3 criapln1561-2016

¶26

bearing survey No. 51/1, admeasuring 1 Hector and 61.87
Rs was purchased by showing the present applicant as
Chief Promotor. Thereafter, he started saying that
since the said land was lateron reserved for certain
public use by the Government and as the measurement of
the land was yet tobe made, the registration of the
society was postponed till 2004.

¶27

.Ultimately, the members had a meeting and it
was decided that the present applicant shuld be removed
from the post of Chief Promotor. In the circumstances,
on 30th June, 2004, the present applicant himself made an
application to the Tahsildar, Tuljapur and submitted
that in his place, name of one Kalyan Namdeo Kadam be
shown as Chief Promotor. However, as said Kalyan Kadam
showed his inability to be the Chief Promotor, one
Mahadeo Murlidhar Pawar was agreed to be the Chief

¶28

Promotor. Thereafter, the procedure for registration of
the society was undertaken and the society was
registered.

¶29

.Thereupon, an enquiry was made with the present
applicant regarding the amount of compensation he
received. He, however, showed his reluctance to pay the

¶30

said amount. It was further found that the land

¶31

4 criapln1561-2016

¶32

acquisition reference was made by the present applicant

¶33

in his own name and the court has enhanced the
compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,14,487/- and the same
is also misappropriated by the present applicant.

¶34

.On the basis of all these allegations, the
offence came to be registered.

¶35

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the society proposed to be registered by the applicant
and some other persons is “Shri Suyog Sahakari
Grihanirman Sanstha, Tuljapur” whereas the society
registered is “Suyog Grihanirman Sahakari Sanstha
Maryadit, Hangarga (Tul)”. The false allegations are
made in the complaint against the present applicant. He
therefore prayed that the interim protection granted by
this court to the present applicant be made absolute.

¶36

5.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and learned
counsel assisting the A.P.P. opposed the application.

¶37

6.Hearing from both sides as well as the

¶38

documents placed on record and more particularly the
true copy of mutation entry No. 2073 would show that on

¶39

1st March, 1990, vide mutation entry No. 1145, the

¶40

5 criapln1561-2016

¶41

present applicant had made an application to the revenue
authorities, got deleted the name of the proposed
society as the owner of the proposed society as the
owner and in its place, got added his own name as Ashok
Sampatrao Kutwal. Thereafter, however, the mutation
entry No. 2073, true copy of which is produced on record
by the learned counsel for the applicant (marked “X”
for the purpose of identification) mentions the
application of the present applicant dated 30th June,
2004, which would show that the present applicant had
requested the revenue authorities to delete his personal
name and to substitute the same in the name of the
proposed society. Accordingly, on 13th January, 2005,
the revenue authorities had carried the correction.

¶42

7.All these revenue entries would show that while
in the year 1990, the present applicant had become
successful in getting the name of the proposed society
deleted and getting it substituted by his own name on
30th June, 2004, he himself made an application to the
revenue authorities asking for correction of the same
and thus, agreeing that the proposed society would be
the owner of the remaining land.

¶43

criapln1561-2016

¶44

¶45

8.Further, there is no proof that the present
applicant had any time shared the compensation received
by him towards the acquisition either from the Collector

¶46

or in view of the compensation enhanced in the land
acquisition reference.

¶47

9.Considering all these facts on record, in my
view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail to the applicant. Further, the custodial
interrogation of the present applicant regarding the
money involved in the offence would be necessary. In
the circumstances, the following order:-

¶48

10.The present application is dismissed. The
interim protection granted to the applicant by this
Court vide order dated 14th March, 2016 stands vacated.

¶49

npj/criapln1561-2016

Ashok S/O. Sampatrao Kutwal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok S/O. Sampatrao Kutwal 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

Ismalil S/O Kashimsab Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagyawant @ Lala Dashrath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Varsha W/O. Rajendra Wadavrao Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash S/O Vaijnath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sona @ Arjun S/O. Vishvnath Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nidan Jalamsing Shikalikar Vs the State of Maharashtra