Dismissed

Hemangi Abhijeet Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Jan 2023ABA/209/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Bombay High Court rejected the request for bail. The court held that the applicant, accused of defrauding a cooperative society via forged documents, was a party to the resolutions effecting the fraud and was not inclined to release her.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was rejected.

Hemangi Abhijeet Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

904-ABA-209-23.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2023 Hemangi Abhijeet Bhosale …Applicant Versus

¶3

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶4

Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for the Applicant. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad Patil, APP for the State. Mr. Krishan Indalkar, PI, Kothrud Police Station, Present.

¶5

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 24 JANUARY 2023

¶6

P.C. :-

¶7

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

¶8

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No. 280 of 2022 registered at Kothrud police station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act.

¶9

The applicant was a Director of Laxmibai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Pune. According to the prosecution, the present applicant and other co-accused defrauded the said Patsanstha to the tune of Rs. 9,74,40,169/-.

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

MJ Jadhav

1 / 2

904-ABA-209-23.odt

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the applicant never attended the meetings of Board of Directors and thus notice was issued to her dated 11 July 2018 to show cause as to why she should not be removed from the post of Director. It is submitted that the applicant in her reply to the said show cause notice had stated that she was not willing to continue as Director. It is submitted that considering these facts and circumstances the present application may be allowed.

¶15

Admittedly, during the relevant period the applicant was Director of the said Laxmibai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha. The amount was defrauded by preparing false and forged documents. She is party to the resolutions by which the amount is defrauded.

¶16

Digitally
signed by
MANGALTAI
MANGALTAI JAYWANT
JAYWANT JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2023.02.09
14:33:05
+0530

¶17

Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Application is rejected.

¶18

( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

¶19

MJ Jadhav

¶20

2 / 2

Hemangi Abhijeet Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemangi Abhijeet Bhosale v. 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

Prakash Motiram Lilke Vs State of Maharashtra

Raosaheb Sukhdev Katore Vs State of Maharashtra

Deepak Krishna Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khandu @ Khanderao Bhausaheb Shendge Vs State of Maharashtra

Mayuresh Ganesh Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramij Razzak Dange Vs State of Maharashtra