Rambhau Genba Moze v. The State Of Maharashtra

Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2021.10.25 19:40:56 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 129 OF 2020 RAMBHAU GENBA MOZE ..APPLICANT VS.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT Mr.Abhishek P. Avachat, for the Applicant.

Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2021 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant is a senior citizen aged about 76 years. In the order dated 17/01/2020 passed by this Court, it is incorrectly recorded that the applicant is 65 years. Learned Counsel relied upon the PAN card issued by Income Tax Department in support of his contention that the age of the applicant is 76 years.

1/4

2.

The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of CR No. 569 of 2017 registered with Lonikand Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 468, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3.

It is alleged by the complainant that the applicant with another co-accused obtained signature of the applicant on the blank letter-head of the Society and transcribe the contents of the termination order dated 30/06/2014, shown to have been accepted and received by the complainant. The FIR is registered on 22/07/2017. 4.

The applicant is the President of the institute where the complainant was working as an Assistant Professor. The co-accused, the Principal of the Pharmacy College where the complainant was working on probation, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that service registers prior to 02/12/2014 were not produced by the applicant. 2/4

5.

The termination order dated 30/06/2014 at page 37 which records that as probation period of the complainant is not satisfactory, her services are terminated with effect from 30/09/2014. It is not the case that the complainant continued to work after 30/09/2014. FIR is registered on 22/07/2017. The allegation appears to be that signature of the applicant was obtained on a blank letter-head of the Pharmacy College at the time of her appointment which was misused while terminating the services of the applicant. Thus, signature of the applicant on the termination letter is not disputed.

6.

Considering that the applicant is granted interim pre-arrest bail from 17/01/2020 and having regard to the nature of the allegation; further that the applicant is almost 76 years of age; termination order is dated 30/06/2014 in respect of which the FIR is registered only on 22/07/2017 after 3 years. Further, it is informed that charge-sheet is already filed. Considering also that the offence registered almost after 3 years from the date of the termination, in my 3/4

opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Hence, the following order.

O R D E R

(I) The order dated 17/01/2020 passed by this Court granting interim protection to the applicant is confirmed.

(II) In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R. No.569 of 2017 registered with Lonikand Police Station, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount. (III) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigating officer.

7.

Application is disposed of.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 4/4