Allowed

Dinesh @ Bhawdu Walmik Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Aug 2021BA/329/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application filed by Dinesh @ Bhawdu Walmik Jadhav under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the evidence, primarily the co-accused's statement revealing the applicant's name and the Section 27 disclosure statement, was insufficient to establish prima facie complicity in forgery offences.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in connection with Crime No. 0241/2020 on executing PR bond of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing sureties in the like amount.

Dinesh @ Bhawdu Walmik Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA 329.21.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.329 OF 2021

¶5

DINESH @ BHAWDU WALMIK JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. R.V. Gore. APP for Respondents: Mr. V.S. Badakho

¶7

CORAM : V.G. BISHT, J.

¶8

ORDER RESERVED ON : 12^th August.2021 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 23^rd August, 2021.

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

1] This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No. 0241/2020 registered with Police Station, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 447, 511 of IPC.

¶11

2] The prosecution alleges that accused Dhananjay Bhosale, visited Chalisgaon Police Station on 22.9.2020 at around 8.00 p.m. and apprised the informant that he is having release order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon in respect of the Tractor bearing Registration No. MH-19-OY3056, which was seized by the police. The informant became suspicious as there was scratching, scoring and overwriting in the registration number of the tractor. After verifying the said order allegedly issued by the SDO office, Chalisgaon, he realized that the order produced by the said accused is forged one. Meantime, said accused tried to run away from the spot. However, he was caught hold of by the police and people at the S.T. Stand, Chalisgaon. It is then that the said accused revealed the name of the present applicant and

¶12

{2}

¶13

BA 329.21.odt

¶14

informed that the said order was given to him by the applicant – Dinesh.

¶15

3] Mr. R.V. Gore, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that except the statement of accused, there is no other evidence against the applicant. Although the prosecution has recorded the Disclosure Statement of the applicant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but that is not sufficient to prove prima-facie the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. According to learned counsel, the applicant is in jail since 26.9.2020 and the fact that there are no criminal antecedents, he needs to be released on bail being the Karta of his family. The learned counsel also showed willingness of the applicant to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this court while granting bail.

¶16

4] Mr. Badakh, learned APP, on the other hand, would submit that the present applicant and accused Dhananjay in collusion with each other forged the release order of the tractor which is apparent from the statements of the witnesses and as also from the disclosure statement of the applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There being no merit in the application, same is liable to be rejected, argued learned APP.

¶17

5] Needless to note here that the FIR against main accused and the present applicant came to be registered only when the main accused, namely, Dhananjay Bhosale revealed the name of the present applicant as the person, who gave him the forged release order pertaining the tractor.

¶18

6] I have gone through the statement of witnesses, who are mainly police personnel and they in one voice state that the name of the present applicant was revealed by accused Dhananjay. Thus, it means

¶19

{3}

¶20

BA 329.21.odt

¶21

that except the statement of co-accused, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant was actively involved in the present crime. Similarly, the alleged disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act, would show that the accused Dhananjay Bhosale had shown the place where the forged order in respect of release of tractor was given to him by the present applicant. In my considered view, this kind of statement will not further the case of prosecution. 7] Prima facie, I am satisfied that there is no overwhelming evidence so as to pin point the complicity of the present applicant in the alleged offence. Moreover, no criminal antecedents are brought on record. In such circumstances, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the following order.

¶22

: O R D E R :

¶23

[a] The application is allowed.

¶24

[b] The applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 0241/2020 registered with Police Station, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 447, 511 of IPC.,on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and on furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions :-

¶25

[i] He shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the

¶26

witnesses.

¶27

[ii] Bail before trial court.

¶28

[V.G. BISHT] JUDGE.

¶29

grt/-

Dinesh @ Bhawdu Walmik Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh @ Bhawdu Walmik Jadhav 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

Riyaz Abutalib Fakir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Shafiq S/O. Shaikh Hasan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Madhavrao Urade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjivani Shivajirao Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Basavraj Baburao Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shobhabai W/O Sanjay Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra