Prakash Ramchandra Kharatmol and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Mr. A. A. Devkhile, for the Applicants. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. P.S.I. Amol Pawar, Vadner Bhairav Police Station, Nashik Rural, present.

¶11

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 07 JANUARY 2026

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

A learned Single Judge has passed the following Order on 3rd April 2024 :-

¶14

“1. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.I-74/2015, dated 08/08/2015, registered with Bhairav Police Station, Nashik, under sections 420, 467, 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Heard Mr. A. A. Devkhile, learned counsel for the Applicants and Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, learned APP for the State.

¶16

The FIR is lodged by one Seema Phulpagare. She has stated that on 10/08/2012, she came across an advertisement in a newspaper issued by M/s. Shri Swami Samarth Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Vairag, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur, that they were conducting a residential school at Wadner, Taluka Chandwad and they wanted to employ teachers and other employees. The informant made an application. The Applicant No.1 called her to Tuljapur and conducted her

¶17

1

¶18

905-ABA-862-2024.doc

¶19

interview. He asked to pay Rs.50,000/- for giving her job. She accordingly paid Rs.50,000/-. The FIR goes on to mention that she was made to pay in all Rs.1,95,000/-. The Applicant No.3 was the brother of the Applicant No.1 and the Applicant No.2 was the wife of the Applicant No.3. The allegations in the FIR are that the said school did not have any permission and it was closed. The informant and others were not given their salary. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the FIR was lodged in the year 2015 and till December 2023 the Applicants were not even aware of the registration of the FIR. They were always available at their address. After about 9 years, there is no reason as to why they should be arrested for custodial interrogation.

¶21

Learned APP submitted that in this case, the investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet is already filed. However, she could not answer as to why the Applicants were not arrested for about more than 8 years and as to why suddenly the investigating agency wants to arrest them.

¶22

In this situation, the Applicants can be protected by way of ad-interim relief, considering that the FIR is lodged long time ago in the year 2015 and for more than 8 years, no steps were taken to arrest them.

¶23

Learned APP shall file affidavit-in-reply of the present Investigating Officer explaining as to why for 8 years no steps were taken and as to why the investigating agency suddenly wants to arrest the Applicants in this case.

¶24

Hence, the following order :

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.I-74/2015, dated 08/08/2015, registered with Bhairav Police Station, Nashik, till the next date, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each, with one or two sureties each, in the like amount.

¶27

2

¶28

905-ABA-862-2024.doc

¶29

(ii) This order shall operate till 30/04/2024.

¶30

(iii) Stand over to 30/04/2024.”

¶31

Thus, by detailed Order, ad-interim protection is granted to the Applicants.

¶32

Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP, states that the Charge-sheet is already filed.

¶33

Thus, investigation is completed. The Applicants are having interim protection since 3rd April 2024 i.e. for last about 1 year and 8 months. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Applicants have misused the interim protection.

¶34

Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in terms of the Order dated 3rd April 2024.

¶35

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶36

3

Prakash Ramchandra Kharatmol and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Ramchandra Kharatmol and Ors. 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

Anil Kisan Lokhande and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta Sole Proprietor of Ms Advance Advertisers vs Santacruz West Education Society

Yashi Kumari Jadeja vs Uttam Parmar and Anr.

M/S Yogesh Textiles Thr Its Bharti N Raithatha Partner Thr Ca Navnit Raithatha and Ors. vs Murli Synthetics and Ors.

Ramesh Gulab Khandebharad vs State of Maharashtra

Shishir Kamalnayan Shirolkar vs Archana Shishir Shirolkar