Allowed

Swati Dhananjay Dadhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jul 2021ABA/691/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating case. She was deceived by a third party into submitting forged documents for a government job despite possessing genuine qualifications. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and ordered her release on a bond upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Conditioned release on bail in Rs. 30,000 with sureties in case of arrest, on cooperation with investigation.

Swati Dhananjay Dadhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 691 OF 2021

¶4

Swati Dhananjay Dhadekar .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Vaihav Karnik, for the applicant. Smt. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 16^th JULY, 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No. 328 of 2019 registered at Bandra

¶9

Police Station, Mumbai, under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

Heard Mr. Vaibhav Karnik, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.

y.s.patil

1 of 8

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

The FIR is lodged by Smt. Sulabha Masurkar, who was working in the health department of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation as Administrative Ofcer, Bandra (West). Under supervision of her department, there are 16 suburban hospitals. The FIR mentions that between January 2015 to December 2015, about 147 eligible candidates were appointed on the post of Laboratory Technician. The criteria for the post was that the candidate should have obtained a degree in Science faculty from a recognized university and the candidate was required to obtain diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician (DMLT) from university recognized by Maharashtra State Board For Technical Education.

¶15

The FIR mentions that one Laxman Gharat gave a written complaint in the informant’s department on 24/06/2016 alleging that the degree certifcates submitted by candidates of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar University, University of North Maharashtra and Bundelkhand University- Jhansi, were all forged y.s.patil 2 of 8

¶16

2 of 8

¶17

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

¶18

certifcates. The informant’s department then verifed these degree certifcates with aforementioned Universities. It was found that seven candidates had submitted degrees from one or the other of these universities and they were found to be fake certifcates. All these candidates were removed from job. The applicant who had secured job on the basis of such degree was also removed from her job on 06/09/2017. On these allegations the FIR is lodged.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to a copy of degree certifcate obtained by the applicant from University of Mumbai in the year 19981999. Said certifcate mentioned that the applicant was awarded diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, in the examination held in November-1998. The University had given such certifcation at the Convocation held on 27/12/1999. Shri Karnik submitted that ,before that, the applicant had obtained degree of Bachelor of Science in the year 1999 itself from Mumbai University. A copy of

3 of 8

y.s.patil

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

that degree certifcate is also annexed to this application. Shri Karnik, therefore submitted that the applicant was well qualifed for that particular job. He further submitted that the applicant was desperate to secure the job as it was her last chance because of her age. She came in contact with one Sachin Sankulkar, who promised her to get that job. He demanded money for that purpose. She paid Rs. 8 lakhs to him for securing the job. Shri Karnik fairly submitted that the means used by the applicant for getting the job were neither legal nor proper. But at this stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, leniency be shown to the applicant. He submitted that the applicant had otherwise no reason to furnish a fake certifcate when she genuinely had certifcates from recognized University i.e. Mumbai University. He, therefore submitted that applicant’s custodial interrogation can be avoided at this stage.

¶24

5. Learned APP strongly opposed this application.

¶25

She submitted that the applicant is an educated lady and

y.s.patil

4 of 8

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

the job was a responsible job. Therefore, she could not say that because of desperation for securing a job, she committed this ofence. She submitted that the form which was submitted to the department bears applicant’s signature, wherein the degree certifcate from Bundhelkhand Univeristy, Jhansi is mentioned. Therefore, even the applicant was aware that a fake degree certifcate was being used for securing a job. She submitted that two of the accused have surrendered and they are released on bail by the Magistrate’s Court.

¶30

In response to these submissions, Shri Karnik further submitted that the applicant had merely put her signature on the form and rest of the form was flled behind the back of the applicant by Sachin. He submitted that the applicant is a lady having two children below 10 years of age. This factor also may be taken into consideration.

¶31

I have considered these submissions. There is

y.s.patil

5 of 8

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

sufcient material in this case to show that the ofence is committed. The form submitted on behalf of the applicant mentions the fake degree certifcate. It was also submitted to the department. However, the applicant was having degree certifcate and diploma certifcate granted by University of Mumbai. Thus the applicant was well qualifed for the post. The difculty for the applicant is that for securing the job, she has used illegal means. This of course cannot be condoned and if proved she can be convicted and appropriately sentenced.

¶36

At this stage I am taking a lenient view as far as

¶37

custodial interrogation of the applicant is concerned, mainly on the following grounds:-

¶38

(I) The applicant had requisite qualifcation.

¶39

(ii) The applicant was desperate to secure her

¶40

job and there is a possibility that Sachin

¶41

cheated her for substantial amount. This of

¶42

course, cannot be a ground for

y.s.patil

6 of 8

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

showing leniency but again the fact remains that the applicant had the requisite qualifcations.

¶47

(iii) The alleged ofence had taken place in the the year 2016. The applicant was dismissed from service on 06/09/2017 and the FIR was lodged much belatedly on 16/04/2019.

¶48

Therefore, after lapse of these years, custodial interrogation of the applicant may not really be necessary. The authorities were aware of these facts and no prompt steps were taken to register the FIR. This is an additional circumstance for consideration. The applicant has small children. She has already lost her job. The applicant can still be convicted and sentenced if the ofence is proved during trial.

¶49

In view of this discussion, the applicant’s custodial interrogation is not really required. It would be sufcient if she co-operate with the investigation.

y.s.patil

7 of 8

2-ABA-691-2020.odt

Hence, the following order :

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

(i) In the event of her arrest in connection with C.R. No. 328 of 2019 registered with Bandra Police Station, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶56

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶57

(iii) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶58

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶59

y.s.patil

¶60

8 of 8

Swati Dhananjay Dadhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Dhananjay Dadhekar 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

Manisha Mahesh Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Karan Rajendra Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naseem Taswar Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhimant Chotalal Chouhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imtiyaz Faizul Rehman Shaikh @ Baaza Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailendra Lalji Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra