Dismissed

Sidharth Popat Kadlak v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Aug 2017ABA/672/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mercantile Court held that the applicant, a retired government employee, is not entitled to anticipatory bail due to serious allegations of forging records regarding floor mill allotment and money collection. The application was rejected, and custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.

What did the court decide?

Application stands rejected. Custodial interrogation is necessary. Interim relief is vacated.

Sidharth Popat Kadlak Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

17.aba-672.17.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.672 OF 2017

¶5

Sidharth Popat Kadlak .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr.Nitin Dalvi for the applicant. Mr.S.R.Agarkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 16^th August 2017

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. The application is filed for the relief of anticipatory bail in C.R. No.109 of 2017 registered with Khed Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 170, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. Papers of investigation were made available for perusal of this Court.

¶10

A crime is registered on the basis of report given by the officer of the Panchayat Samittee (Circle Officer) Khed. The present applicant was working in Women and Children Welfare Section and he retired due to superannuation on 31^st May 2016. At the time of retirement, he is expected to hand over charge of things and records to the employee who was taking charge of his post. Allegation against him is that he did not hand over the complete charge and due to that, there was suspicion and so committee was constituted to verify the things. When the committee made an enquiry, it was noticed that there were many irregularities. It was noticed that the charge of as many as 78 floor mills was not handed over. It was also noticed that the false record of

¶11

ppn 2 17.aba-672.17.doc

¶12

allotment of floor mills was created by him and even when there was no sanction, in 11 cases, the floor mill was given to the person who was not entitled to get benefit. He prepared a false and forged list of 57 beneficiaries. He had collected 10% amount from the beneficiaries on the value of floor mills as per the scheme but that amount of Rs.12,467/was not credited in the account of the office. In reply affidavit, it is contended by the State that there was possibility of involvement of other employees and so custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court to some inconsistencies which can be found in the First Information Report if it is compared with the report of the committee. Though there are some inconsistencies, the fact remains that there is serious allegation against him that he did not hand over the charge of the aforesaid articles and some records and this was done probably to conceal his wrong, offence. After detailed enquiry, the aforesaid things are noticed. Such incidents are increasing day by day and poor persons are not getting benefits of such government scheme due to the wrong of the persons like applicant. This Court holds that due to creation of false record and for not giving floor mills to the person entitled and for making money by showing false disposal of the floor mills, the applicant is not entitled to get any discretionary relief. Custodial interrogation is necessary. In the result, the application stands rejected. Interim relief is vacated.

¶14

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

Sidharth Popat Kadlak v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharth Popat Kadlak 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

Akshay Ashok Lonare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atash @ Etaj Allahuddin Shaikh Vs the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Anr.

Alamgir Gulab Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rupa Shrishail Mandoli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajshekhar Adappa Pantoji and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mujahid Shah Aslam Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra