← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/92/2015bail rejected

Raju Illahi Mhetar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2015-02-06Hon'Ble Smt. Justice S.S. Jadhav2 pages

Mhi 1 ABA-92-15.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2015 Shri Raju Illahi Mhetar ...

Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondents Mr.Amol Deshpande i/b. P.D.Pise,Advocate for the applicant Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP, for the respondent-State.

CORAM:

SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J.

DATE : 6th February, 2015.

P.C.

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.210 of 2014 registered with Miraj City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468,471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant is working as a sweeper in Municipal Corporation, Sangli in Health Department. That he had given a wrong impression to the needy that there are vacancies in the Municipal Council. He had assured them of employment and had obtained huge amount and he had given them forged appointment letters.

Mhi 2 ABA-92-15.sxw 3.

On 20.12.2014, the Administrative Officer of Miraj Municipal Council lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that the present applicant had forged appointment letters in respect of several persons who are also made accused in the present case. Without there being valid appointment, they had received the salary. The applicant had opened the accounts of the said persons.

4.

Perused the papers of investigation. One Pooja Mahadev Khandekar, who is also made an accused in the present case, has disclosed to the police that since 6.1.2014, she was working as a sweeper in the Municipal Council. The applicant had opened account in her name. For six months she had received the salary. It was subsequently revealed that the appointment was bogus. Apparently, a case of forgery, fabrication of documents and cheating is made out against the present applicant. The applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief in the form of pre-arrest bail.

5.

The application being sans merit, stands rejected. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)