Allowed

Dr. Anita W/O. Rajesh Devidan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Jan 2023APPLN/58/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by Gangadhar Ratan Shinde, aged 66, in a case involving alleged fraudulent transfer of land and forgery was allowed. The court granted bail on conditions, noting the completion of investigation and the applicant's age and lack of attendants.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing PB and SB of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

Dr. Anita W/O. Rajesh Devidan Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

29ba2112.22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

29 BAIL APPLICATION NO.2112 OF 2022 WITH

¶4

APPLN/58/2023 IN BA/2112/2022

¶5

Gangadhar Ratan Shinde, Age; 66 yers, Occ; Agri, R/o; At Post Siraswadi, Tq. & Dist. Indewadi, Jalna. ...Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Kadim Police Station, Tal. & Dist. Jalna.

¶8

...Respondent.

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Sakshi Ajeet Kale h/f Mr.Hajare Abhishek M. APP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.B.Narwade

¶10

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

¶11

DATE : 16.01.20223

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel Mrs. Sakshi Ajeet Kale h/f Mr.Hajare Abhishek M. for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶14

It is the case of a fraudulent transfer of land and forgery.

¶15

The field of the wife of the Complainant was transferred by way of fraudulent sale deed. It has been alleged against the applicant that

¶16

¶17

29ba2112.22

¶18

the applicant has received Rs. 5,00,000/- from forged transaction. It has also been argued that subsequent to the crime the said amount has been paid to the son of buyer. The applicant’s learned counsel would submit that the applicant is linguishing behind the bar since 2022. The material investigation against the applicant has been completed. He cannot be detained till the arrest of the other coaccused. He is 66 years old having no attendants.

¶19

The learned APP opposed the application on the ground that the applicant was the beneficiary of the amount earned fradulently. He has played active role in the crime. The co-accused is his relative. Therefore, application may be rejected.

¶20

Considering the role attributed to the applicant, his age and the material progress in the investigation, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following order :

¶21

ORDER

¶22

a) The application is allowed. b) Applicant – Gangadhar Ratan Shinde,, be released on bail, on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, in C.R.No.426 of 2022, registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station District Jalna, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 read with

¶23

3 29ba2112.22

¶24

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on following conditions that he shall attend the Police Station on every Tuesday in between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till filing Charge-sheet.

¶25

Criminal Application No. 58 of 2023 in Bail Application No

¶26

2112 of 2022 stands disposed of.

¶27

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶28

mahajansb/

Dr. Anita W/O. Rajesh Devidan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anita W/O. Rajesh Devidan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Shrikant Chandrakant Selukar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tariklal Ahileji Darde @ Darade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Sadanand Shinde Vs Rojmery Ashok Shinde

Ikechukwu Nathan Onyjelam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Durgaprasad Rajeshwarrao Deshpande Vs Sarika Durgaprasad Deshpande

Vithal Gunderao Gone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another