Dismissed

Yogesh Shankar Gosavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jun 2022ABA/368/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected anticipatory bail application. Court held that denying opportunity to interrogate the applicant would adversely affect the investigation into leakage of army recruitment exam papers, despite lack of evidence showing applicant circulated questions to examinees.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; no opportunity to interrogate applicant deemed necessary for effective investigation.

Yogesh Shankar Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Rane 1/43-ABA-368-2022.odt
 9June, 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 368 OF 2022

¶4

…

¶5

) Applicant

¶6

Yogesh Shankar Gosavi
V/s.

¶7

) Respondent

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

Mr. Sudatta Patil, a/w. Mr. Vikdramsingh Parmar,
Advocate for the applicant in ABA-368-2022.

¶10

Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for State.

¶11

ACP, Mr. Narayan Shrigaonkar, Wanavadi Police
Station present.

¶12

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

¶13

 DATE : THURSDAY, 9TH JUNE, 2022.

¶14

P .C. :

¶15

1.Heard Mr. Sudatta Patil, learned Counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Patil, learned APP for State. Investigating
Officer is present in the Court.

¶16

2. Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime

¶17

Rane

¶18

Rane 2/43-ABA-368-2022.odt
 9June, 2022

¶19

No.83/2021 registered with Wanawadi Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 of the Indian
Penal Code, Sections 7, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and Sections 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra
Prevention of Malpractice at University Board and other
Specified Examination Act, 1982 and Section 66(c) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶20

3.Prosecution case in brief is that, on 27th February,
2021 a secret information was received by the Crime Branch
from Military Intelligence, Southern Command, Ghorpadi
that the written examination question paper of Relation
Army Recruitment, which was scheduled to be held on 28th
February, 2021 has been leaked by accused no.1 and being
circulated. Whereafter, accused no.1( Kishor Mahadev Giri)
was arrested on 28th February, 2021. Investigation has
revealed that, question paper was forwarded by the accused
no.1 to the applicant on his Whatsapp. A screenshot of the
question paper allegedly forwarded to the applicant, is
produced for my perusal alongwith the investigation record.
It shows that, questions were forwarded to the applicant. In
addition to the screenshot, prosecution has produced the

¶21

Rane

¶22

Rane 3/43-ABA-368-2022.odt
 9June, 2022

¶23

summary of call detail, between the applicant and accused
no.1 to state that, they were in contact frequently since 1st
January, 2022 till 18th February 2022. Mr. Sudatta Patil,
learned Counsel for the applicant would argue that,
investigation does not point that applicant further circulated
questions allegedly received by him. It is therefore argued
that, barring the screenshot, there is no other material to
suggest, applicant’s complicity in circulating the examination
papers, as alleged.

¶24

4.I have considered the rival submissions and
perused the investigation record. Mr. Sudatta Patil, learned
Counsel for the applicant, has correctly submitted that, there
is no evidence that the applicant has circulated the question
papers to examinees, either for consideration or otherwise.
However, unless prosecution interrogates the applicant, it is
not possible to probe and unearth the complicity of the
applicant or such other persons in leakage and circulation of
the exam papers. At the time, fact cannot be overlooked that
examination papers of Army Recruitment have been leaked
by applicant no.1. In consideration of the facts of the case, in
my view, denying opportunity to the prosecution to

¶25

Rane

¶26

Rane 4/43-ABA-368-2022.odt
 9June, 2022

¶27

interrogate the applicant would affect the investigation
adversely. Even otherwise, the offences are serious in nature.
For all these reasons, application is rejected.

¶28

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶29

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2022.06.10 15:05:22 +0530

¶30

5. It is made clear that observations made
hereinabove be construed as expression of opinion only for
the purpose of rejecting bail and the same shall not in any
way influence the trial in other proceedings.

¶31

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶32

Rane

Yogesh Shankar Gosavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Shankar Gosavi 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

Vijay Rajaram Mane Vs State of Maharashtra

Shweta Keyur Modi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anantraj @ Satish Dhananjay Belsure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Rajaram Yedage Vs State of Maharashtra

Pratap Balasaheb Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aryan Madhav Bedade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.