Dismissed

Nanasaheb S/O Saloba Sarode v. Thes Tate of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Apr 2016APPLN/2006/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding alleged misappropriation charges, the court rejected the applicant's argument that a supplementary statement recorded 14 months post-FIR indicated lack of complicity. Finding that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the substantial loss to the society, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.

Nanasaheb S/O Saloba Sarode Vs Thes Tate of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 Cr. Appln. 2006-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2006 OF 2016

¶4

Nanasaheb S/o Saloba Sarode,
Age 45 years, Occu. : Private Service,
R/o Bel Pimpalgaon, Tq. Newasa,
District Ahmednagar,
at present resident at S.T. Colony,
Near Mohata Devi Mandir, Bajaj Nagar,
Waluj, MIDC, Aurangabad.. Applicant

¶5

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through City Police Station,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar

¶6

.. Respondent

¶7

Mr. B.G. Sagade, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent-State

¶8

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 15/04/2016

¶9

ORAL ORDER :

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

2.The present applicant, who is apprehending

¶12

arrest at the hands of Shrirampur City Police Station,

¶13

Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar in crime no. 164 of
2013 for the offences punishable under section 408,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 427 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, is praying for his release on bail, in the
event of his arrest.

¶14

2 Cr. Appln. 2006-2016

¶15

3.The FIR dated 08/06/2013 filed by the

¶16

complainant i.e. the General Manager of Bhaichand
Raichand Raisoni Multistate Co-operative Credit Society
Ltd., would show that in Jalgaon branch of the Credit

¶17

Co-operativesociety,variouscasesof

¶18

misappropriations were noted. One of the transactions
is dated 31/10/2011. It is alleged that one Jeevan

¶19

Bardiya, Manager of the said branch had shown one
cheque of Rs.2 Lakhs of Shrirampur branch as credited

¶20

in the savings bank of Vaishali Sarode i.e. wife of the
present applicant and he himself withdrew the said
amount and thus misappropriated the same.

¶21

4.Thereafter, on 22/8/2014, his supplementary
statement was recorded by the Investigating officer.
In the said supplementary statement, he gave one
additional transaction alleged to have been done by the
said Jeevan Bardiya. According to him, the present
applicant, in collusion with his wife and said Jeevan
Bardiya had from the said savings bank account,
withdrew non-existant amount of Rs.16,35,000/- and has
committed the misappropriation of the said amount.

¶22

3 Cr. Appln. 2006-2016

¶23

5.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

¶24

after 14 months of the filing of the initial FIR, this

¶25

supplementary statement is recorded. He further
submits that applicant is not in any way concerned with
the same.

¶26

6.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application.

¶27

He submits that a separate transaction was noted by the
Head Office of the Society and, therefore, the separate
transaction was informed to the Investigating Officer
in the nature of supplementary statement, which, in-

¶28

fact could have been an independent FIR. He submits
that in the situation, no anticipatory bail be granted
to the applicant.

¶29

7.Upon hearing both sides and considering the
fact that substantive amount of the co-operative
society is lost, merely because the supplementary
statement is recorded after 14 months of the filing of
the FIR, cannot be a ground for protecting the present

¶30

applicant. Taking into consideration all these facts
on record, in my view, the custodial interrogation of

¶31

the present applicant would be required. In the

¶32

4 Cr. Appln. 2006-2016

¶33

circumstances, the following order:-

¶34

8.The Application is therefore dismissed.

¶35

[M.T. JOSHI]
 JUDGE

¶36

arp/

Nanasaheb S/O Saloba Sarode v. Thes Tate of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanasaheb S/O Saloba Sarode v. Thes Tate 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

Sangita @ Savita W/O Laxman Solanke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Shivaji Shyamrao Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Patting Kisanrao Gadadhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishal S/O Mahadeo Bhagwat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman S/O Lalsing Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok S/O Shivaji Mhaske Vs Ashok S/O Anaji Wakchaure and Anr.