Dismissed

Maya Bhaskar Sawant v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jul 2018BA/169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected three connected bail applications filed by Maya Bhaskar Sawant, Ravindra Motiram Sirsam, and Sonam Dattatraya Pawar. The applicants were accused in a crime registered at Bhosari Police Station, Pune, involving extortion and kidnapping where false rape threats were allegedly used to extort money.

What did the court decide?

All three bail applications stand rejected; Sessions Court directed not to be influenced by these observations at the time of trial.

Maya Bhaskar Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

6- BA 169 of 2018/268 of 2018/ 1159 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION No. 169 OF 2018

¶4

Maya Bhaskar Sawant ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

WITH BAIL APPLICATION No. 268 OF 2018

¶6

Ravindra Motiram Sirsam ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION No. 1159 OF 2018

¶7

Sonam Dattatraya Pawar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

¶9

Mr. Virendra Kumar Rai a/w. Mr. Imran Sayed i/b. Hulyalkar and Associates for Applicant in BA No. 169 of 2018

¶10

Mr. Aniket U. Nikam i/b. Mr. Aashish Satpute for Applicant in BA No. 268 of 2018 and BA No. 1159 of 2018

¶11

Mr. S.H. Yadav -APP in BA No. 169 of 2018 and BA No. 268 of 2018 Mr. Prashant Jadhav -APP in BA 1159 of 2018 ******

¶12

1/4

¶13

V.A. Tikam

¶14

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE: JULY 12, 2018

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard. These are the applications seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No. 286 of 2017 registerd at Bhosari Police Station, Pune City for offences punishable under Sections 395, 342, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecution that on 8^th July, 2017, Niyamat Ali Kadri lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that on 5^th July, 2017 in the midnight, he had received a phone call from Pranali Pawar, who had called him to meet her. There is a subsequent call by Pranali asking him to meet her. Thereafter, she had booked a room in 'Vanraj Lodge' at Alandi, where she had taken the first informant and his friend. Thereafter as per her demand, he had paid Rs.1,500/-. When he came out of the hotel, they had seen four women and one man, who had accosted the first informant and then a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was made from the first informant by threatening that they would file a report against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the Applicant Ravindra Sirsam had snatched Rs.6,000/- from his pocket. Subsequently, he was released.

¶18

On 8^th July, 2017, he had lodged a report to that effect. The supplementary statement of the Complainant was recorded. He had stated that

¶19

2/4

¶20

V.A. Tikam

¶21

soon after he came out from the said hotel, they had seen the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 268 of 2018 and Applicant in Application No. 169 of 2018 approaching towards them and upon seeing them, Applicant No.3 had started crying loudly and had complained that she had been raped by the complainant. He subsequently realised that it was a racket and hence, lodged a complaint at the police station. On the basis of which , Crime No. 286 of 2017 was registered at Bhosari Police Station.

¶22

In the course of investigation, it had transpired that it is a racket of all the three applicants. That they had exposed several respectable people to social obloquoy by initially calling upon them and, thereafter, threatening them of rape and extorting huge money. There is incriminating material against the Applicants. The amount of Rs.6,000/- has been recovered from the Applicant Ravindra Sirsam. The Applicant in Criminal Application No. 169 of 2018 was a person, who had called upon the complainant and had laid a trap.

¶23

In the course of investigation, it had transpired that all the Applicants

¶24

have earlier trapped several people, whose names are mentioned in the report and they had lodged report under section 376 against those people. Upon realizing that they have been trapped, there are cases registered against the Applicants.

¶25

3/4

¶26

V.A. Tikam

¶27

In view of the papers of investigation and the police report, the Applicants do not deserve bail. Hence, all the three applications stand rejected. The Learned Sessions Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid

¶28

observations at the time of trial.

¶29

[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]

¶30

4/4

¶31

V.A. Tikam

Maya Bhaskar Sawant v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Bhaskar Sawant 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

Pravin Sharad Parkhi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Azim Salim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Israr Abdul Kalam Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinayak Prakash Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Maruti Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak B. Patangare Vs the State of Maharashtra