Anita John vs State of Maharashtra

want to go abroad for employment. It is alleged that to circumvent this requirement, the present applicant and the other co-accused obtained a tourist visa for him for Oman and work visa for UAE. It is alleged that the applicant has accepted Rs.2,00,000/- from coaccused Harsh Mehta for the said purpose.

¶22

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

¶23

This Court on 04.07.2025 passed the following order:

¶24

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a sum of Rs 60,000/- was credited to the bank account of the applicant's company. This amount was received specifically towards charges for spoken English training, interview preparation and consultation services rendered. A proper receipt was duly issued to the co-accused, Harsh H Mehta, thereby evidencing the legitimacy of the transaction and the absence of any wrongful intent on the part of the applicant.

¶25

The learned Counsel further submits that, apart from the bare allegation that the applicant received Rs.60,000/- from the account of co-

Pramod S.Lakare

2/4

38-aba-1819-2025.doc

accused Harsh Mehta, there exists no material on record that connects the applicant to the commission of the alleged offence. The learned Counsel further submits that the investigation in the present case has already concluded and a charge sheet has also been filed before the competent Court against the co-accused. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation by attending the concerned police station and submitting all relevant documents as may be required by the investigating officer.

¶30

The learned APP seeks time to take further instructions.

¶31

By consent, stand over to 4 August 2025. In the meantime, the applicant shall attend the concerned police station on 9th, 10th and 11th July 2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and cooperate with the investigation. There shall not be any coercive action against the applicant in the present crime till the next date.

¶32

There is no grievance that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. The investigation is over and the prosecution has filed the charge-sheet against the co-accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am

Pramod S.Lakare

3/4

38-aba-1819-2025.doc

inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

a] The Application is allowed.

¶39

b] In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 280 of 2025, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶40

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶41

Pramod S.Lakare

¶42

4/4

Anita John v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita John v. State of Maharashtra

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhavesh P Bhinde vs State of Maharashtra

Shafiq @ Shafi Shafur Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kavitakumari Rahul Pujari vs Rahul Bhupat Lal Pujara and Ors.

Ramesh S/O Ramchandra Mahajan vs Anil S/O Damodar Tanksale and Others

Neha Balakrishna Shetty vs State of Maharashtra

Avinash Vijay Aakde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.