Allowed

Anantraj @ Satish Dhananjay Belsure v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jun 2022ABA/1100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Single Judge Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction bail application. The applicant sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest for having withdrawn funds from the complainant's deceased father's account without consent, an offence under Section 420 IPC. The court directed deposit of Rs.10.10 Lakhs as a condition, which was satisfied, and subsequently granted anticipatory bail on a non-cogniza

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on a non-cognizable bond for Rs.20,000 with one or more sureties in like sum, subject to joining investigation and not tampering with evidence.

Anantraj @ Satish Dhananjay Belsure Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

10-ABA-1100-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANT. BAIL APPLICATION NO.1100 OF 2021

¶4

Anantraj @ Satish Dhananjay Belsure … Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶5

Mr. P.G.Sarda for the Applicant. Mr. N.B.Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 8 th JUNE, 2022.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the applicant

¶9

and Mr. Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶10

2 Apprehending arrest in connection with the

¶11

investigation of the Crime No.149 of 2021 registered with Sangli

¶12

City Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420

¶13

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applicant is seeking anticipatory

¶14

bail.

¶15

Shivgan 1/4

¶16

10-ABA-1100-2021.odt

¶17

3 Complainant, Sau. Ujwala Shital Patil is sister of the

¶18

applicant. On 9 th March, 2021, she lodged First Information Report, alleging that after her father’s death, applicant withdrew Rs.20 Lakhs and odd amount from her father’s account without her consent. In consideration of the facts of the case, this Court vide order dated 16 th March, 2022, directed the applicant to deposit Rs.10.10 Lakhs in the trial Court, to show his bonafides. Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submits that applicant has deposited the said amount in the trial Court. Statement is accepted.

¶19

4 In consideration of the facts of the case and nature of accusations, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Application is, therefore, allowed. Hence, following order;

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No.

¶22

Shivgan 2/4

¶23

10-ABA-1100-2021.odt

¶24

149 of 2021 registered with Sangli City Police Station, he shall be released on executing PR bond for the sum of Rs.20,000/with one or more sureties in like sum.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall join the investigation, if required, by the Investigating Officer.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case

¶27

5 The application is accordingly allowed and disposed

¶28

of.

¶29

6 It is made clear that observations made here-in-above

¶30

be construed as expression of opinion for the purpose of bail

¶31

Shivgan 3/4

¶32

10-ABA-1100-2021.odt

¶33

only and the same shall not in any way influence the trial in

¶34

other proceedings.

¶35

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶36

4/4

¶37

Shivgan

Anantraj @ Satish Dhananjay Belsure v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anantraj @ Satish Dhananjay Belsure 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

Mahesh Govind Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gopinath Bhimaji Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Kalu Tongare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Rajaram Mane Vs State of Maharashtra

Shweta Keyur Modi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Devidas Patil Vs State of Maharashtra