Partly allowed

Anna Digambar Dhepe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Aug 2023ABA/1965/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted an applicant permission to withdraw his anticipatory bail application with liberty to surrender within one week. Simultaneously, bail was granted to a co-applicant apprehending arrest for theft and cheating, subject to conditions including appearance before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw anticipatory bail for applicant No.1 with liberty to surrender within one week. Bail for applicant No.2 on Rs.15,000 bond with sureties, subject to conditions.

Anna Digambar Dhepe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

916-aba1965-2023.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1965 OF 2023

¶5

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.08.10 17:10:50 +0530

¶6

Anna Digambar Dhepe & Anr.… Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶7

Mr. Ganesh Gupta with Mr. Sahil Ghorpade for the
applicants

¶8

Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED:AUGUST 10, 2023

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1.Learned advocate for the applicants, on instructions, seeks
permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application in respect
of applicant No. 1 with liberty to surrender before the Trial Court
within one week from today.

¶13

2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.

¶14

3. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn as against applicant No.1 with liberty as prayed for.

¶15

4.As against applicant No.2, apprehending arrest in connection
with C.R. No.173 of 2022 dated 22 June 2022 registered with
Vishrantwadi Police Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 392, 411 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶16

¶17

916-aba1965-2023.doc

¶18

1860, the applicant No. 2 is seeking relief of pre-arrest bail under
Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶19

5.According to prosecution, the complainant went with her
husband to take sight of Sant Dnyaneshwar’s Palakhi at Indira
Nagar, Yerwada, Pune. ?The place was full of crowd and during
3.00 to 3.30 p.m. while the complainant was taking darshan of
Paduka of Mauli, someone pulled her hairs from behind which was
painful. Suddenly an unknown woman was pulling her Nuptial
Chain (Mangalsutra) weighing about 3 tolas (30 grams) forcibly.
The complainant grabbed her hand but taking advantage of crown
that woman ran away with a flick of complainant’s hand.

¶20

6.The report alleges that at the same place two women told
the complainant that their Mangalsutras wighing 2.5 tolas and 0.5
tola were also pulled forcibly and stolen by one unknown woman.
Then they all went to police station and lodged complaint. During
complaint they described the look of that unknown women like
wearing red kurti, white leggings etc. The description of stolen
Mangalsutras is as follows:

¶21

a) 3 tolas Mangalsutra of complainant;

¶22

b) 2.5 tolas Mangalsutra of Shalini Musale; c) 0.5 tola Mangalsutra of Jyoti Randheer; and d) 0.5 tola Mangalsutra of Seema Bandal.

¶23

7.On these allegations, FIR was registered but nowhere the
name of the applicants is mentioned. Applicant No.1’s name got
surfaced after one year i.e. on 8 May 2023 on the statement of co-
accused Siddharth Jadhav stating that he has sold the stolen

¶24

¶25

916-aba1965-2023.doc

¶26

ornaments to the applicant No.1.

¶27

8.The application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Additional
sessions Judge, Pune came to be rejected by order dated 5 June
2023.

¶28

9.On perusal of the report, it appears that applicant No.2 has
no criminal antecedents. Though Siddharth Jadhav has named
applicant Nos.1 and 2 at this stage, applicant No.2 deserves to be
protected since applicant No.1 has already withdrawn the
anticipatory bail application. Prima facie it appears that the shop
of goldsmith stands in the name of applicant No.1 and, therefore,
applicant No.2 deserves to be protected. Hence, following order:

¶29

a)In the event of arrest of the applicant No.2 in
connection with C.R. No.173 of 2022 dated 22 June 2022
registered with Vishrantwadi Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 392, 411 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the amount of Rs.15,000/- with one
or two sureties in the like amount;

¶30

b)The applicant No.2 shall remain present before the
investigating officer on 21, 23 and 25 August 2023 between
11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called by
the concerned investigating officer;

¶31

c)The applicant No.2 shall cooperate with the
investigation and make himself available for interrogation
whenever required;

¶32

¶33

916-aba1965-2023.doc

¶34

d)The applicant No.2 shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶35

e)The applicant No.2 shall not obstruct or hamper the
police investigation and not to play mischief with the
evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶36

f)The applicant No.2 shall, at the time of execution of
the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to the
investigating officer, and the court concerned, and shall not
change the residence till the final disposal of the case;

¶37

10. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in above
terms. No costs.

¶38

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶39

Anna Digambar Dhepe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anna Digambar Dhepe and Anr. 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

Sushant Aboni Paul and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sameer Ilahi Tamboli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin @ Chetan Ramdas More Vs State of Maharashtra

Anil Ganpatrao Ramod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anthony Anderson Oyemina Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anthony Anderson Oyemina Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.