Dismissed

Salubai Gangaram Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Feb 2017ABA/349/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge rejection of an anticipatory bail application under section 438 CrPC, where the accused faces charges of cheating, forgery, and using a missing woman's fake identity, prima facie evidencing guilt requiring custody. Subject: anticipatory-bail. Rule: ok.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC rejected and accused to be arrested.

Salubai Gangaram Mahadik Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

904.ABA349_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 349 OF 2017

¶4

Salubai Gangaram Mahadik l Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

... Applicant ... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. N.B. Bhosale, P.I., Khadki Police Station, Pune.

¶8

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 23^rd February, 2017.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr. P.C. The applicant/accused is apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 15 of 2017 registered with Khadki Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is registered at the instance of Dagdu Bhaurao Sangle.

¶11

It is the case of the prosecution that complainant's daughter Archana was in live-in relationship with the principal accused Santosh Nandkishor Katore. In 2005, by sale deed dated 15^th December, 2005, Archana and Santosh purchased one flat for Rs.4,17,000/- at Sanskruti Prangan, Baner, Pune and thereafter

¶12

1 / 3

¶13

904.ABA349_2017.doc

¶14

since 4^th November, 2006 Archana is missing. Her father Dagdu, who is the present complainant, have given complaint of missing of his daughter on 21^st November, 2006 at Chatrushringi Police Station but still Archana is missing. On 4^th February, 2012 one sale deed was registered in respect of same flat where Archana and Santosh has sold the said flat to one Manoj Chavan. The applicant/accused, who is the sister of Santosh, has personified herself as Archana before the Registrar, Pune. The photograph on the original Pancard of Archana and the photograph appearing on the sale deed which was registered on 4^th February, 2012 is different. Moreover, Archana is missing since 2006. Hence, this Application.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that all the documents are before the police and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused. He further submitted that she is an illiterate woman and she has been used by her brother Santosh, hence he prays for pre-arrest bail.

¶16

Learned APP opposed this Application and submitted that the

¶17

applicant/accused has appeared before the Registrar and she has represented herself as Archana.

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

904.ABA349_2017.doc

¶20

I have considered the facts of the case and heard the

¶21

submissions of both the sides. In view of the nature of offence, prima facie there is evidence against the applicant/accused and her custody is required in order to find out material details. Hence, Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶22

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶23

3 / 3

Salubai Gangaram Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salubai Gangaram Mahadik 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

Sanjay Shankar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amitbalraj Chandrakumar Shrivastav Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.

Harishchandra Govind Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hemlata Dadaso Choudhar Vs Mayur Deepak Adhale and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Laddugopal Chaturbhuj Sharma and Ors.

Shivanagouda Sannagouda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra