Allowed

Raju Ramchandra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Oct 2023ABA/936/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Court made the interim bail order absolute for the applicant charged with cheating and falsely representing himself as an advocate. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted as the applicant had deposited the alleged amount and cooperated with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail order dated 24th April 2023 was made absolute. The applicant is to appear before the investigating officer on alternate Saturdays.

Raju Ramchandra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1-aba-936-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.936 OF 2023

¶4

Raju Ramchandra Patil ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Gautam Kanchanpurkar, for the Applicant Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent/State.

¶6

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2023

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶9

This application is preferred seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 12 of 2023 registered at Mandavi police station for the offences punishable under sections 170 and 420 read with 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860.

¶10

The gravamen of indictment against the applicant is that the applicant has falsely represented himself to be an advocate and induced the first informant to part with a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs under the pretext of assisting her in prosecution of a litigation in respect of the property bearing survey Nos. 17/1, 17/2 and 72/4, in the Court at Vasai and in this Court.

¶11

When the matter was listed before this Court on 24^th April,

Vishal Parekar

...1

1-aba-936-2023.doc

2023, this Court was persuaded to grant interim bail as the applicant had shown willingness to deposit the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, of which the first informant was allegedly defrauded, before the trial Court.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in terms of the said order, the applicant has deposited the amount before the trial Court and has also cooperated with the investigation and appeared before the investigating officer as directed.

¶17

Having regard to the nature of the accusations, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem to be warranted to facilitate further investigation. The applicant has deposited the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs before the trial Court. In view of the above, I am inclined to make order of interim bail absolute.

¶18

The order dated 24^th April, 2023 is made absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶19

The amount of Rs. 5 lakhs deposied by the applicant shall abide the final order in the prosecution arising out of C.R. No. 12 of 2023.

¶20

The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer on every alternate Saturday in between 10 am to 12 noon for a period of two months or till filing of the charge-sheet whichever is earlier. 10. In the meanwhile, the learned Magistrate shall invest the

Vishal Parekar

...2

1-aba-936-2023.doc

amount in an interest bearing account.

¶25

In addition, the applicant shall regularly attend the

¶26

proceeding before the jurisdictional Court.

¶27

Application disposed.

¶28

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶29

Vishal Parekar

¶30

...3

Raju Ramchandra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Ramchandra Patil 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

Sulzer Pumps India Private Limited Vs Jayendra Arun Jog

Vitthal Narayan Kadam Vs Ali Ahamad Bashir Shaikh and Ors.

Dhanista Builders and Developers Thr. Prop. Devdas Bhujang Rao Vs the Municipal Commissioner Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Others

Subhash Chand Katoch Vs State of Maharashtra

Sabita Bhalotia Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Aluwind Architectural Private Ltd. Thr. Directors and Ors. Vs Housabai Jagannath Gavhane and Ors.