Rameshwar Shivaji Vanjari v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:11115
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 954 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 64 OF 2025 Rameshwar Shivaji Vanjari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Andhale Sandip Ramnath APP for Respondents-State: Mr. N. B. Patil ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : April 17, 2025.
PER COURT :- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2.
The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.672/2024, dated 09/08/2024, registered at Shevgaon Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409 r.w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
This Court, by order dated 25/02/2025, directed the applicant to attend the concerned police station and provide details of the amounts invested by 50 out of 55 persons and to demonstrate the nature of those investments. 4.
The learned APP submits that 55 persons have invested money with the applicant, and out of them, the amounts of only five persons have been deposited by the applicant with a Pat-Sanstha, which has since gone defunct. The applicant has failed to provide details regarding the remaining investors. 5.
It is unfortunate that the applicant has neither attended the police Page 1 of
954 ABA 64-2025 station nor provided the requisite details as directed by this Court. 6.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to certain matrimonial disputes, the applicant could not attend the police station. However, this explanation does not justify the continued grant of interim protection.
7.
This Court had earlier granted interim protection to the applicant on 04/02/2025 and directed him to cooperate with the investigation, including attending the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Despite being granted interim protection in February 2025, the applicant has not complied with the directions, resulting in a lack of progress in the investigation.
8.
In view of the above, no case is made out for further continuation of interim protection. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) vj gawade/-.
Page 2 of