Vivek Gaurav Srivastava vs State of Maharashtra

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.255 of 2024 registered at Charkop Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶12

It is the case of the prosecution that the co-accused in the present crime got prepared forged documents in respect of flats owned by the first informant and his wife and on the basis of said forged documents had availed the loan of Rs.3.10 Crores from Canara Bank, Mandvi Branch. At the relevant time, the present applicant was working as a Chief Manager at Mandvi Branch. The

¶13

1/3

¶14

Dinesh S. Sherla

¶15

907-aba-235-26.doc

¶16

allegations against the applicant are that he forwarded the loan proposal to Cuff Parade branch for sanction without any verification of documents and in consideration after disbursement of loan received gold biscuits worth Rs.9 Lakhs from one of the coaccused.

¶17

I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the loan was sanctioned by Cuff Parade Branch. It is submitted that nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the present applicant and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶19

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that during the course of investigation, one of the coaccused namely Darshan Chudgar has revealed the involvement of the present applicant in the crime in question. It is submitted that the loan proposal was submitted to Cuff Parade branch without verification of documents which shows the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

2/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

907-aba-235-26.doc

I have perused the papers of investigation and more particularly, the statement of co-accused Darshan Chudgar. According to him, co-accused Beena has handed over the said gold biscuits to the present applicant, who according to the prosecution is absconding. Except the said statement of coaccused, there is no other material to connect the present applicant with the crime in question. The allegations of forgery are against the co-accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

A) The Application is allowed.

¶26

B) In the event of arrest of the applicant in C.R. No.255 of 2024 registered at Charkop Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, he be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount.

¶27

C) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶28

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶29

3/3

¶30

Dinesh S. Sherla

Vivek Gaurav Srivastava v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Gaurav Srivastava 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

Narendra Agarwal and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjiv S/O Shankar Avhad vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Jameel Ishq Khan vs Angeline Babu Ninima

Kuldeep Sharma vs State of Maharashtra

Chandrakiran Satyanarayan Pillamaram vs State of Maharashtra

Rizwan Ahmad Jalauddin Shah vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.