Dismissed

Rajaram Dattajirao Shirke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Jan 2023ABA/92/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. It observed that the applicant, a government servant, was a co-accused in a cheque fraud case. The judge found that WhatsApp messages sent by the applicant after the alleged crime indicated involvement, precluding the need for custodial interrogation by other co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected. An interim order was extended for six weeks to approach the Supreme Court.

Rajaram Dattajirao Shirke Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

913-ABA-92-22.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2022 Rajaram Dattajirao Shirke …Applicant

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

Mr. Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amey Patil i/b Prashant Pawar for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. Ganesh Gupta i/b GG Legal Associates for the Intervener. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad Patil, APP for the State.

¶7

Mr. Satish Nandurkar, SPI, Sangvi Police Station, Present.

¶8

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 20 JANUARY 2023

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail.

¶11

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 511 of 2021 registered at Sangvi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The applicant is a Desk Officer in Home Department of State of Maharashtra. According to the prosecution, the complainant, who is a Dentist, got acquainted with the present applicant and other co-accused through his sister, who is a social worker.

MJ Jadhav

1 / 4

913-ABA-92-22.odt

According to the complainant, on 20 September 2020, he had received Whats App message from co-accused Vikas Shinde, who according to the complainant, at the relevant time was Personal Assistant to one of the Ministers in Government of Maharashtra. According to the complainant, by the said message the co-accused Vikas Shinde has informed him that Government of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises had decided to fill the post of ‘Director’ for State of Maharashtra and told him to send his bio-data. According to the complainant, on the very same day, at about 10:00 p.m. through conference phone call, the present applicant and other co-accused Vikas Shinde and Shreya Chavan had told him to immediately arrange Rs.1 crore as according to them there was a lot of competition for the said post. According to the complainant, he believed upon the words of applicant and other co-accused and paid them Rs.1,06,00,000/-. According to him, the present applicant and other co-accused thereafter gave him order nominating as Director bearing national emblem. According to the complainant, when he did not get any office or other facility as assured by the applicant and co-accused, he started making inquiry and found that the order was forged and he was duped.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that

MJ Jadhav

2 / 4

913-ABA-92-22.odt

according to the complainant himself, he had given the alleged amount to the co-accused. It is submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the applicant and thus there is no need of custodial interrogation.

¶23

I have perused the papers of investigation. Some of the Whats App messages between the applicant and the complainant are as follows:

¶24

“Sent by Complainant : lj ueLrs] vkiY;k o fodkl ljkaP;k iz;Ruus ekÖ;k vk;q”;ke/khy [kwi eksBa dke vkt ekxhZ ykxya eh o ek>s laiw.kZ dqVqach; vkiys o fodkl ljkaps vk;q”;Hkj _.kh jkgq-

¶25

MkW vkfnR; irdjko

¶26

Sent by Applicant : /kU;okn MkWDVj lkgsc] vkeph vkiY;k cnny vlysyh tckcnkjh vkEgh yodj iw.kZ d#] vki.k vkeP;kcnny tks fo’okl nk[koyk R;kcn~ny fodkl o eh vkiys vkHkkjh vkgksr-

¶27

Sent by Applicant : All documents r forwarded, getting further details call u tomorrow good night sir Sent by complainant : lj Js;k eWMe th us dke lq# dsys dk-- lkseokjh eh fnYyh yk tkÅu HksVw ‘kdrks dk R;kauk? Sent by Complainant :Ok sir good night Sent by Applicant : They started our work, she told me our work is 99% done. U should get remaining compliance as early as possible, we will talk on conference tomorrow.

¶28

Sent by Complainant :Yes sure sir”

¶29

Admittedly, the applicant is government servant. If according to the applicant, he was not involved in the alleged crime, then there was no reason for him to send the above messages to the complainant who is neither his relative nor his friend. There is a material in the form of phone call conversations between the applicant and other co-accused. In my view, there is enough material to infer the involvement of the present applicant

MJ Jadhav

3 / 4

913-ABA-92-22.odt

in the alleged crime. I am therefore, not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶34

Digitally
signed by
MANGALTAI
MANGALTAI JAYWANT
JAYWANT JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2023.01.31
14:06:27
+0530

¶35

At the request of the learned senior counsel for the applicant, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to operate for the further period of six weeks from today to enable the applicant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶36

( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

¶37

MJ Jadhav

¶38

4 / 4

Rajaram Dattajirao Shirke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Dattajirao Shirke 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

Abdulla Faruk Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Ramdas Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sushant Ramesh Ombale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak Genbhau Korade Vs State of Maharashtra

Umaji Panghaji Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Riyazoddin Rafiyoddin Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra