Dattatraya Shankar Boblade v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 33) aba864-18.doc SAS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.864 OF 2018 Dattatraya Shankar Boblade ..Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

Mr.Shriram S.Chaudhari for the applicant.

Smt. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the respondent-State. Ms.Manisha Devkar for respondent No.2.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : JANUARY 8, 2019 P.C.:- Learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submits that the applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in demand draft in favour of the investigating officer within one week from today. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking.

2.

The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.57/2018 for offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 467,

2 33) aba864-18.doc 468, 504 and 506(2) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Sangola police station, District Solapur. 3.

It is the claim of the applicant that he is neither the Director of any company nor related to accused Nos.2 to 5. According to him, he is employed as an assistant teacher in Zilla Parishad and there were no intention on his part to cheat the complainant.

4.

Per contra, learned APP opposed the claim and submitted that there is enough material against the applicant and as such the application be rejected.

5.

Considered rival submission.

6.

The statement of the applicant that he is neither the Director nor business partner of accused Nos.2 to 5 is accepted. The applicant has shown his bona fides by agreeing to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the investigating officer within one week from today. In that view of the matter, ad-interim protection ordered by this Court on April 27, 2018 is confirmed subject to the said deposit of amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant will be

3 33) aba864-18.doc entitled to the said amount after following the due process of law. 7.

If the amount is not deposited, the protection granted to the applicant shall cease to operate automatically without further reference to the Court.

8.

The applicant is ordered to be released on the same terms as are incorporated in the order dated April 27, 2018. 9.

The applicant to continue to appear before the investigating officer as and when directed.

10.

The applicant shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

11.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)