Meera W/O Dattatraya Bansod Vs the State of Maharashtra

1] Heard. For the reasons stated in Criminal Application Nos.673/2025 and 674/2025 for assisting to the P.P., the same are allowed. Criminal Applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶49

2] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for assisting to P.P.

¶50

3] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime Nos. 0655/2024, 0683/2024, 0818/2024, 0646/2024, 0892/2024, 0872/2024 and 0832/2024, registered with Sangamner Police Station, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar.

¶51

4] The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant is receiving stolen properties i.e. golden

¶52

4

¶53

142.25ABA+

¶54

ornaments snatched by the various snatchers. As such, various FIR are registered.

¶55

5] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of co-accused has been linked the present applicant in the alleged crimes. She further submits that the golden shop is being run by her son and she is not running the said shop. Therefore, the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged crimes. Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.

¶56

6] The learned APP submits that in the memorandum of panchanama under Section 23 (2) of Bhartiya Saksh Adhinyama, 2023, the co-accused has shown the house and shop of the present applicant where the coaccused has sold the stolen properties and co-accused have made statement involving the present applicant in the alleged crimes. The learned APP further submits that stolen properties are yet to be recovered. Considering the said fact, the present applications may be dismissed.

¶57

7] Considering this aspect i.e. the stolen property is yet to be recovered and the co-accused in various FIRs have named the applicant and also shown her place of business to the investigating officer, this is not a case to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Hence, the present applications are dismissed.

¶58

5

¶59

142.25ABA+

¶60

8] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail applications and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of this Court while deciding regular bail or at trial.

¶61

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶62

DDC

Meera W/O Dattatraya Bansod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera W/O Dattatraya Bansod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.K.Mishra and Sons vs Union of India and Anr. through Its the Chairman and Anr.

Swapnil Bibhishan Kokate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagjeetsingh Alias Jaggi Dilbaghsingh Sandhu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhakar Madhukar Payale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunita W/O. Anil Ahire Vs Sandip Yashwant Jagdale and Others

Nandlal @ Nandu Shamrao Pathe Vs the State of Maharashtra