Single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges under IPC Sections 452, 380 regarding alleged misappropriation of office articles, citing doubts about the FIR's authenticity and witness conduct.
Released on bail on furnishing R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 6-ABA No.193-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2019
Sachin Bhaskar Jore ] … Applicant
Versus
Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. S.S. Kaushik, APP for State/Respondent. Mr. B.G. Ligade, Advocate for the Intervener. PSI Mr. Navnath Kudale attached to Dehuroad Police Station present.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 13th AUGUST, 2019.
P. C. :-
C.R.No.588/2018 registered with Dehuroad Police Station, Pune Rural
u/sec. 452, 380 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
applicant was an Advocate and was handling informant's legal matters
since about 4 years prior to registration of FIR. The informant has Purti Parab
1 of 5
2 6-ABA No.193-19.doc
mentioned that, he has cleared the applicant's professional fees from time to time. The FIR further mentions that, on 29/10/2018, at about 8.00 p.m., his partner Sunil Kolekar called him telephonically and told him that, the present applicant was removing articles from his office. The informant went to his office. At that time, he met his peon Ramesh. Ramesh told him that, the present applicant and his car driver Pravin Tambhat came to informant's office and took away one Air Conditioner, Inverter, Laptop, DVR Machine, Samsung Television. Based on these allegations, the FIR is lodged.
Purti Parab
3 6-ABA No.193-19.doc
working for the informant and was looking after his legal matters. He submitted that, therefore it was not unusual for the applicant to visit the informant's office. What was unusual was the conduct of the office boy Ramesh and other person from the office who had not informed the informant immediately when the incident of theft had allegedly occurred. He submitted that, on that day itself the applicant had appeared for the LLM examination and it would not have been possible for him to commit this offence.
Purti Parab
3 of 5
4 6-ABA No.193-19.doc
photocopy machine near the applicant. Though the informant claims that, the photographs was taken at the same place at the same time. It is not clear under what circumstances and by whom these photos were taken. There were no CCTV footage. Therefore, at this stage, except the statement of office boy Ramesh there is nothing in the entire investigation to substantiate the claim of the first informant. The conduct of this witness Ramesh is very unnatural. If the applicant was taking away all these articles without permission, he should have immediately informed to the first informant. But he had not informed him till the informant came to the office. The contention that, all these articles were taken away in a small car is not believable. Even, at this stage the applicant has created sufficient doubt about the genuineness of the story of the first informant. There is a strong possibility that, the applicant is falsely implicated because of the disputes. In this situation, if the interim protection is denied, it will cause irreparable harm to the applicant. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order.
Purti Parab
4 of 5
5 6-ABA No.193-19.doc
ORDER
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
5 of 5
Purti Parab
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the doubts regarding the genuineness of the FIR and investigation evidence.
Whether the conduct of the prosecution witness supports the version of the accused regarding alleged misappropriation of office articles.
Whether there is sufficient material at this stage to warrant denial of interim protection and consequent irreparable harm to the applicant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin Bhaskar Jore
State
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
