Allowed

Ganesan Kaliyan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Dec 2022ABA/3113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court confirmed interim anticipatory bail granted to Ganesan Kaliyan, a software company CEO, apprehending arrest in a criminal case alleging conspiracy, cheating, and malpractices at a University examination board, considering his medical condition and lack of incriminating material.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail granted by order dated 01.12.2022 was confirmed.

Ganesan Kaliyan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

2-aba-3113-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3113 OF 2022

¶3

Ganesan Kaliyan …Applicant V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra

¶5

...Respondent.

¶6

Ms Lakshmi Raman for the Applicant. Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent/State PI Kumar G. Ghadge, Cyber Police Station, Pune City present.

¶7

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 22.12.2022.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.

¶10

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.56 of 2021 registered at Cyber police station, Pune for the ofences punishable under Sections 406, 409,420,465,467,468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 7 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at Universities, Board and Other Specifed Examinations Act, 1982.

¶11

3. This Court on 1 December 2022 passed the following order:

¶12

“1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. fled by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.56/2021 registered with Cyber Police Stn., Pune for the ofences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D

1/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

2-aba-3113-22.doc

of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 7 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at Universities Board and other Specifed Examinations Act, 1982.

¶17

Heard Ms. Laxmi Raman learned counsel for applicant and Mr. A.A.Palkar, learned APP for the State. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for respective parties.

¶18

The aforesaid crime was registered against the applicant and other accused pursuant to the FIR lodged by Dattatray Jagtap, Chairman of Maharashtra State Council of Examination. The applicant is CEO of GA Software Company. It is the case of the prosecution that contract to conduct Teachers Eligibility Test was given to GA Software Company. It is alleged that Mr.Pritesh Deshmukh the Director of Software Company and the other ofce bearers of the Maharashtra State Council of Examination conspired with each other and collected an amount of Rs.4,20,00,000/- from 800 disqualifed candidates and inserted their names in the original list on the Website of TET(Teacher Eligibility Test), thereby cheating the Government as well as qualifed candidates.

¶19

The applicant is not named in the FIR. Learned APP, on instructions, states that no amount has been deposited in the account of the applicant. Hence, prima facie, the applicant is not the benefciary of the said conspiracy. Learned counsel for applicant has placed on record Medical Certifcate indicating that the applicant has recently undergone surgery of Branch Vessel Coronary Artery. Considering the facts and circumstances applicant is entitled for interim bail on following conditions:

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No.56 of 2021 registered with Cyber police Station, Dist.Pune, he shall be released on interim bail on execution of PR Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶21

The applicant shall report to the investigating ofcer, on 15th,16th, and 17th December between

2/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

2-aba-3113-22.doc

11.00a.m. to 2.00p.m.

¶26

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. 4. The Applicant shall keep the Investigating Ofcer informed of his current address and mobile contact numbers, and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time.

¶27

Stand over to 22/12/2022.”

¶28

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. The applicant has complied with the conditions of interim anticipatory bail. It is thus submitted that the interim anticipatory bail may be confrmed.

¶29

The learned APP submits that as on today there is no incriminating material to connect the present applicant with alleged crime.

¶30

Considering the above facts, I am inclined to confrm the interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by order dated 1 December 2022 is hereby confrmed.

¶31

The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called.

¶32

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of.

¶33

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶34

3/3

¶35

Dinesh S. Sherla

Ganesan Kaliyan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan Kaliyan 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

Sanjay Sohan Batunge Vs State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Dnyandeo Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rutik Ashok Dandanavare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rutik J Thorve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Trupti Hukmichand Khandewal Vs State of Maharashtra

Shankar Dattu Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra