Allowed

Chitra Ramesh Dingore v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Mar 2022ABA/543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The applicant, accused No.3, sought parity with co-accused Accused No.4, who had already been released on bail for a similar role. The court allowed the bail application, directing surrender and adherence to proclamatory bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000 with sureties; directed to attend I.O. and not tamper with evidence.

Chitra Ramesh Dingore Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed SALGAONKAR by SALGAONKARM M M M Date: 2022.03.05 00:10:32 +0530

¶2

1/3 21 ABA-543-22.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.543 OF 2022

¶5

Chitra Ramesh Dingore .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.Sanjay Patil for the Applicant. Ms.A.A.Takalkar, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.

¶9

PSI Shri K.N.Balip attached to Shahpur Police Station present.

¶10

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 03^rd MARCH, 2022

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with co-accused Sau.Sangeeta Ganesh Kamdi, who came to be released on bail in the event of her arrest, by an order passed by this Court on 16/11/2021 (Anticipatory Bail Application No.2579 of 2021).

¶13

The applicant claim that the role attributed to her is similar to the one attributed to Sangeeta Kamdi i.e. being a member of Treasury Committee, which has approved release of amount towards purchase of fsh seeds/food. In the whole background, it was recorded that the members of the Treasury

¶14

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶15

2/3 21 ABA-543-22.doc

¶16

Committee were not party to the release of amount in favour of Shree Enterprises and considering the limited role attributed, the protection was extended in her favour.

¶17

The learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Offcer who is present in the Court, states that the role attributed to the present applicant in the subject C.R. is identical and she is arraigned as accused No.3 whereas Sangeeta Kamdi was arraigned as accused No.4. In the wake of the aforesaid statement being made, I am inclined to pass a similar order dated 16/12/2021.

¶18

: ORDER :

¶19

(i) In the event of arrest, applicant-Chitra Ramesh Dingore in C.R.No.I-342/2021 registered with Shahapur Police Station for Offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, she be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Offcer from 09/03/2022 to 11/03/2022 between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m., and, thereafter, as and when directed. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Offcer and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶21

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶22

3/3 21 ABA-543-22.doc

¶23

Application stands disposed off.

¶24

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶25

M.M.Salgaonkar

Chitra Ramesh Dingore v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitra Ramesh Dingore 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

Anand Shankar Tedginkari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Javaharmal Chandan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Omkar Mahindar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amitkumar Ashok Singh Vs Pawan Amar Mutreja and Anr.

Imaraj Abrar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bipin Lira Nor Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.