Sushma Ravindra Gavhale vs State of Maharashtra

The present Application is filed by the Applicants under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding Section 438 of Cr.P.C], for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 0165 of 2024, dated 14 October 2024, registered with Alankar Police Station, District Pune (City), under Sections 123, 137 (2), 318 (4) of the Bharayiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶11

According to the F.I.R., the Applicant/Accused is a woman

¶12

1

¶13

Amol D. Nawale

¶14

908-ABA-300-2025 (CR) .doc

¶15

who deceives people by establishing an acquaintance with them. Similarly, she came into contact with the present Informant and claimed that she could work for her. Initially, the Informant refused to provide her with any work. However, when she contacted the Informant again, the Informant trusted her and took her along on her motorcycle from Mirch Masala Hotel, Karvenagar, to a flat in Bhekarai Nagar.

¶16

It is alleged the present Applicant gave the Informant a lemon juice containing some kind of sedative drug. Thereafter the Informant lost her consciousness. When the Informant regained consciousness, the Applicant was nowhere to be found. Consequently, the present F.I.R. was filed and all her ornaments, including a gold chain, gold earrings, cash amounting to Rs.2,000/-, and mobile handsets, with a total value of Rs.1,56,000/-, were stolen by the present Applicant.

¶17

Mr. Bhujbal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Anticipatory Bail Application before the Sessions Court was rejected solely on the ground that a similar kind of crime had been registered against the present Applicant in the past. He submits that in the earlier F.I.R. the Sessions Court

¶18

2

¶19

Amol D. Nawale

¶20

908-ABA-300-2025 (CR) .doc

¶21

granted regular bail, and the Applicant has been cooperating and attending the proceedings.

¶22

He further submits that merely because a similar case has been lodged against the Applicant, without considering the specific facts of the present F.I.R., the Sessions Court should not have rejected the Anticipatory Bail Application. He further submits that the Applicant is willing to cooperate with the police and that her custody is not necessary.

¶23

The learned APP submits that the Applicant is a habitual offender who establishes acquaintances with people and then deceives them by administering sedative drugs. A similar crime has already been registered against her, and she was granted regular bail by the jurisdictional Court.

¶24

The learned APP has produced before me a statement dated 8 December 2024, given by a woman who does household work. She stated that her SIM card was used by the present Applicant for various criminal activities. She became aware of this when she started receiving calls from the police and unknown individuals, leading her to realize that her SIM card had been used for criminal activities. This fact is crucial in rejecting the Anticipatory Bail

¶25

3

¶26

Amol D. Nawale

¶27

908-ABA-300-2025 (CR) .doc

¶28

Application, as it appears that the present Applicant is involved in multiple criminal activities.

¶29

I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides. According to the F.I.R. the accused has cheated the Informant for an amount of Rs. 1,56,000/-. There are antecedents recorded against the present Applicant, in which she has been granted regular bail.

¶30

From the F.I.R., it can be gathered that after establishing an acquaintances with the Informant, the Applicant administered some kind of sedative drugs to her. Subsequently, all the Informant’s ornaments, including a gold chain, gold earrings, cash amounting to Rs.2,000/-, and mobile handsets with a total value of Rs.1,56,000/-, were stolen by the present Applicant. Therefore, the custody of the Applicant would be necessary in order to find out where are the stolen property kept, and how many such other crimes are committed by the Applicant/Accused.

¶31

There is no merit in the present the present Anticipatory bail Application hence the same is rejected .

¶32

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶33

4

¶34

Amol D. Nawale

Sushma Ravindra Gavhale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Ravindra Gavhale v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramanand @ Ram Pandharinath Dombe vs State of Maharashtra

Sandip Muktaji Bansode vs State of Maharashtra

Tarachand Meghraj Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs Carmel Lal and Anr.

Asif Abdul Aziz Jatu and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Yashwant Patil and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra