Allowed

Shakuntala Chandrashekhar Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Nov 2020ABA/825/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application where the accused deposed to a settlement with the informant, refunding substantial funds. The court held there was no propriety in arresting the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused released on bail by executing personal recognizance of Rs.20,000 with sureties in like amount.

Shakuntala Chandrashekhar Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

( 1 ) aba825-20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.825 OF 2020

¶4

(1) SHAKUNTALA CHANDRASHEKHAR DESHMUKH (2) PARESH CHANDRASHEKHAR DESHMUKH VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Advocate for Applicants : Shejwal Arun S
APP for Respondents: Mr.V.M.Kagne
Adv. for assist to P.P. : Mr.A.N.Patil Barhate

¶7

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
 DATE : 06/11/2020

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

The learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned Advocate for
the original informant unanimously submit that the parties have arrived at
some settlement out of Court. The original complainant would file her
affidavit which may be permitted to be taken on record.

¶10

2]I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned
A.P.P. on the point of grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are alleged to
have deceived the informant by promising to secure a job to her and made her
to part with money. Some of the money has been returned but the applicants
are now apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime registered
pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by complainant.

¶11

3] It appears that even before registration of the crime Rs.9 lakhs were

¶12

( 2 ) aba825-20

¶13

refunded to the informant and now the parties have also arrived at some sort
of settlement. The informant files her consent affidavit today which is taken
on record and marked as "X" for the purpose of identification. She has
received Demand Drafts for an amount of Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs.

¶14

4]Considering these supervening circumstances, there is no propriety in
allowing arrest of the applicants.

¶15

5] The application is allowed.

¶16

6]In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with Crime
No.616/2020 registered with Police Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the
I.P.C. , they shall be released on bail on their executing personal recognizance
for an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty thousand only) each and furnishing
a solvent surety in the like amount each subject to following conditions :

¶17

a]They shall attend the concerned Police Station till filing
of the charge sheet as and when called by the Investigating
Officer and shall cooperate him.

¶18

b]They shall not tamper the evidence or influence the
witnesses.

¶19

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

¶20

umg/

Shakuntala Chandrashekhar Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Chandrashekhar Deshmukh and Anr. 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

Jaysing S/O. Rupla Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sopan S/O. Kisan Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Goraksha S/O Rajendra Kekan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ayyubkha Lalakha Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jijabrao Namdeo Sadarao Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sambhaji Ramdas Girhe Vs the State of Maharashtra