Sunita W/O Suryakant Katore And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:4397 1 920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2025
1. SUNITA W/O SURYAKANT KATORE
2. SURYKANT MANIKRAO KATHORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Manish Purushottam Tripathi APP for Respondent/State: Mr. B. B. Bhise ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 14th FEBRUARY, 2025 PER COURT:
1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2.
The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.712/2024, dated 13.12.2024, registered at Basmat City Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5) and 108 of B.N.S.
3.
The case against the applicants is that they have cheated the deceased by asking him to give them money of Rs.15,00,000/- and in return the applicants would give the deceased 40 tolas of gold. The deceased, thereby, agreed to sale his house property for an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- to some another person / co-accused and for which the
2 920 deceased received Rs.16,00,000/- in terms of agreement to sale dated 29.10.2024 of which Rs.15,00,000/- was given to the applicants. However, the applicants did not give 40 tolas of gold and, thereby, provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Under pressure of having lost the property and also money, it is stated that the deceased has committed suicide. Accordingly, the FIR is registered and the above allegations are made against the accused.
4.
The learned APP submits that there is another antecedent against applicant no.1 - wife, in Crime No.246 of 2024 of similar type, wherein applicant no.1 has received Rs.35,00,000/- on promise of return of gold of higher value. The learned APP submits that Sections 420 and 406 of IPC are also added in the FIR against the applicants. 5.
Considering the nature of allegations, the involvement of the applicants is prima facie seen in offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. There is also antecedent against applicant no.1. 6.
Considering the case as narrated above and, prima facie, as there is material available against the applicants, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe