Sudarshan Dattatraya Pangarkar And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:8071
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 955 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2025
1. Sudarshan s/o Dattatraya Pangarkar,
2. Amol s/o Arvind Harjule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bagal Vishal A.
APP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : March 19, 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 FIR No.0007/2025, dated 07/01/2025, registered at Selu Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under sections 471, 468, 465, 420 r.w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
This Court by order dated 07/03/2025 granted interim protection to the applicants noticing the submissionas and reasons at paragraphs No.3 to 5 as under : - "3.
The case against the applicants is that, being friends of the informant's son, they had informed the informant that if a payment was made to accused No.1, who is the Trustee of Sai Apang Trust, his son would be offered a job at the said Trust. The initial demand was for Rs.15 lakhs, which, after negotiations with accused No.1, was reduced to Rs.12 lakhs. It is alleged that the payment was made in the presence of the applicants in three installments i.e. Rs.6 lakhs, Rs.3 lakhs, and Rs.2 lakhs, between 2018 and 2023. Despite receiving the payment, accused No.1 subsequently issued an appointment order in 1 of
955 ABA 2332025 the name of another trust. Moreover, there was no vacancy available in Sai Apang Trust at the relevant time. It is alleged that the applicants, in collusion with accused No.1, have cheated the informant by facilitating the payment without any appointment being provided.
4.
The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants, being friends of the informant's son, merely accompanied the informant to assist him and were present during the payment process. It is contended that the applicants acted as witnesses to the transaction and had no role in the commission of the alleged crime. The learned Counsel further submits that there is no evidence in the entire FIR or any statement indicating that the applicants have benefited from the payment or received any amount from the informant. In these circumstances, it is argued that the applicants ought not to have been made accused in the case. 5.
Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants, prima facie, there is no material indicating that the applicants actively participated in the crime or were involved in the alleged inducement. Accordingly, interim protection is granted in favour of the applicants."
4.
The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation. There is no dispute regarding their attendance at the police station. 5.
Considering the above, the interim protection granted to the applicants by order dated 07/03/2025 is confirmed. 6.
In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following 2 of
955 ABA 2332025 terms: - i] In the event the applicants are arrested in connection with FIR No.0007/2025, dated 07/01/2025, registered at Selu Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under sections 471, 468, 465, 420 r.w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii] The applicants shall attend the police station as and when called by the police.
iii] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case. iv] The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.
7.
In the event, the applicants violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled. 8.
It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
9.
The application stands disposed of.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) vj gawade/-.
3 of