Balaji Nanasaheb Talekar v. the Commissioner of Police and Another

Bombay HC14 Jan 2025ABA/1766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed — Aurangabad Bench, Bombay High Court, R. M. Joshi, J., 14.01.2025; ABA No. 1766 of 2024; Balaji Nanasaheb Talekar; Crime No. 0177/2024, Pundliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad; IPC Sections 420, 312, 313 r/w 34; Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act Section 33(2); PCPNDT Act Sections 23, 25, 3-B; MTP Act Sections 4, 5; charge-sheet contains no evidence of involvement; implication solely on co-accused's alleged statement; no memorandum of co-accused's statement recorded; witness statements do not support prosecution; interim liberty protected 17.10.2024, no misuse; not likely to flee; allowed in terms of interim order.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in terms of the interim order (applicant's liberty had been protected on 17.10.2024). ¶¶20

Balaji Nanasaheb Talekar Vs the Commissioner of Police… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted in terms of the interim order (applicant's liberty had been protected on 17.10.2024).

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, who apprehends arrest in Crime No. 0177/2024 (Pundliknagar Police Station, District Aurangabad) for offences under the IPC, Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act, PCPNDT Act and Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, should be granted anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

There is no allegation of misuse of the interim liberty protected on 17.10.2024, and the applicant is not likely to flee from justice; accordingly the application is allowed in terms of the interim order.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie perusal of the charge-sheet does not indicate any evidence against the applicant showing his involvement in the crime.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Implication of the applicant is sought only on the basis of the alleged statement of the co-accused, and the Court finds substance in this contention of the applicant's counsel.ratio¶¶18
The charge-sheet contains no memorandum of the co-accused's statement recorded during investigation.ratio¶¶18
The statements of witnesses recorded do not support the prosecution case against the applicant.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), R. M. Joshi, J., 14th January 2025 — Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1766 of 2024 (Balaji Nanasaheb Talekar v. The Commissioner Of Police & another): The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 0177/2024 of Pundliknagar Police Station, District Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 420, 312, 313 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 33(2) Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act, Sections 23, 25 and 3-B of the PCPNDT Act, and Sections 4 and 5 of the MTP Act. Examining the charge-sheet (investigation over, charge-sheet filed), the Court found prima facie no evidence of the applicant's involvement; implication rested solely on an alleged statement of a co-accused for which no memorandum was recorded in the charge-sheet; witness statements did not support the prosecution case. With the applicant's liberty already protected on 17.10.2024, no misuse of liberty alleged, and no likelihood of fleeing from justice, the application was allowed in terms of the interim order.

¶1

¶2

aba1766.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

931 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1766 OF 2024

¶5

Balaji Nanasaheb Talekar ….Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The Commissioner Of Police & another …..Respondents

¶8

….. Mr. V. S. Wakale, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 14^th JANUARY, 2025.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 0177/2024 registered with Pundliknagar Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 312, 313 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act and under Sections 23, 25, and 3-B of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Determination) Act and under Section 4 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

¶12

Perusal of the First Information Report indicates that offences are registered against applicant under the provisions of

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

aba1766.24.odt

¶15

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Determination) Act read with Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act and other offences under Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that now investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. By referring to the charge-sheet it is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence in order to connect applicant with this crime. He contends that though it is claimed by prosecution that the co-accused has made statement against the applicant, however, memorandum of such statement has not been recorded during investigation.

¶17

Learned APP opposed the application. He cited seriousness of the crime as a reason for rejection thereof.

¶18

Prima facie perusal of the charge sheet does not indicate any evidence against the present applicant showing his involvement in the crime. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that only on the basis of alleged statement of the co-accused implication is sought herein. However, in charge sheet even there is no memorandum of statement recorded of the co-

¶19

aba1766.24.odt

¶20

accused to that effect. Apart from this, statements of witnesses recorded do not support the case of prosecution against the present applicant. Applicant’s liberty was protected on 17.10.2024. There is no allegation of misuse of liberty. He is not likely to flee from justice. Hence, application is allowed in terms of the interim order.

¶21

dyb

Balaji Nanasaheb Talekar v. the Commissioner of Police and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Nanasaheb Talekar v. the Commissioner of Police and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Anupa Murli Yadav and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Anupa Murli Yadav and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rahul @ Rawul Bhaguram Sawant and Ors.

Shankarrao Ambrushi Borkar vs Dinkar Kalyan Gapat and Another

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs Manorama Manohar Jambhale Thr.Her Husband and Next Friend Mr. Manohar Mahadev Jambhale and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Shri. Tushar Arvind Raje and Anr.