Dismissed¶21

Ravindra S/O Suresh Kalejwar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ramnagar, Chandrapur

Bombay HC7 Apr 2025ABA/202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.), 07/04/2025 - Criminal Application (ABA) No.202 of 2025, Ravindra s/o Suresh Kalejwar v. State of Maharashtra (P.S. Ramnagar, Chandrapur): anticipatory bail rejected in a Section 420 IPC cheating case (Crime No.43/2025) involving Rs.8,00,000 allegedly taken on a false job promise; Court held custodial interrogation necessary as investigation into the allegedly forged appointment letter and non-payment of any salary was pending.

What did the court decide?

Investigation as to whether the appointment letter was issued by the concerned authority or is a forged letter is yet to be carried out; therefore custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. ¶19

Ravindra S/O Suresh Kalejwar Vs State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:3890

¶2

(1) 43.aba.202.2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.202 OF 2025

¶5

Ravindra s/o Suresh Kalejwar Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Ramnagar, Chandrapur

¶7

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. M. V. Rai, Counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Ms. M. A. Barabde, APP for non-applicant /State.

¶10

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 07/04/2025

¶11

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.43/2025 registered with Police Station Ramnagar Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant approached this Court for grant of bail.

¶12

As per the allegations, the informant has got acquaintance with the father of the applicant and both were working in WCL. In the month of April 2019, the applicant was working in Hindusthan Scout Guide, Maharashtra and intimated there is post of Guide trainer which is to be filled and if the daughter of the informant is interested, then he can state the further process. The informant inquired with the applicant regarding the job then he stated that the

¶13

(2) 43.aba.202.2025

¶14

person has to go to the various schools and has to teach the drills and physical activities to the school students. The applicant intimated for that purpose he has to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the said society and obtain the money. The forged appointment letter was issued to the daughter of the informant, no salary is received by her and thus, the informant is duped by the present applicant.

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the appointment letter was issued, she served there. Thus, the question of cheating does not arise. He submitted that the FIR is rather delayed i.e. after six years. Thus, considering all these aspects, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that it was represented that she was appointed in the Scout and Guide, in fact, she never received any salary. The appointment letter was also forged one. Thus, considering that the applicant has obtained the amount of Rs.8,00,000/from the informant by taking disadvantage of unemployment of his daughter and he was duped and therefore, custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required.

¶17

After hearing both sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that the amount is

¶18

(3) 43.aba.202.2025

¶19

obtained on promising the job to her in Hindusthan Scout and Guide. The appointment letter is on record. Whether the said appointment letter is issued by the concerned authority or it is a forged letter that investigation is yet to be carried out and further investigation the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required. Considering the statements of the witnesses which are recorded. The account statement which is produced on record which shows that the daughter of the informant has not received a single penny towards the salary. If really she was appointed, there was no reason for depriving her from salary. Thus, the investigation as to the said appointment letter itself is yet to be carried out. In view of that, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The application is rejected.

¶22

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶23

Sarkate

Ravindra S/O Suresh Kalejwar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ramnagar, Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Suresh Kalejwar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ramnagar, Chandrapur

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

Vijay S/O Pundlikrao Deulkar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Kapil Nagar Police Station, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur

Mithun S/O. Mahadeo Shaha vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Kondali, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur

Naresh Alias Narendra Kamadi vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Mul, Dist. Chandrapur

Shriram S/O. Madhukar Kharate Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps Nandura, Ta. and Dist. Buldhana

Mohammad Najim S/O Abdul Rahim and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Anjangaon Surji, Amravati and Anr.

Prakash Hariram Ade Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Rural, Karanja(Lad), Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim