← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/277/2025dismissed

Nilesh Padmakar Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025-03-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker2 pages

2025:BHC-AUG:6224 1 912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2025 NILESH PADMAKAR JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Syed G. R.

APP for Respondent/State: Ms. Neha B. Kamble ...

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 704 OF 2025 IN ABA/277/2025 CHANDRAKANT PRALHADRAO KARWAR

VERSUS

NILESH PADMAKAR JADHAV AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant :

Mr. N. S. Salunke h/f. Mr. Jangada Suyashkumar S. APP for Respondent/State: Ms. Neha B. Kamble ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 04th MARCH, 2025 PER COURT:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2.

The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.125/2024, registered with New Mondha Police Station, Taluka and District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2 912 3.

The case against the applicant / accused no.3 is that he has collected jewellery from the informant to be delivered to accused No. 1. It is stated that the jewellery was handed over to the applicant / accused no.3 and it was delivered to accused no.1 as it was stated that accused no.1 has made payment for the same. However, accused no.1 is avoiding payment for the same. Thereafter, the complaint was made to the police.

4.

It is stated that the jewelry was handed over to the applicant on the basis of the UTR entry indicating that the payment has been done for the jewellery by accused no.1. However, the UTR entry was fabricated and, as such, the gold which was handed over to the applicant / accused no.3, was partly recovered from accused no.2 (i.e. sister of the present applicant). Till date 72 grams of the gold is yet to be recovered, which was handed over the present applicant. 5.

Considering the above, this is not the fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.

In view of that, the application stands dismissed. 7.

In view of dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, the application for assist to public prosecutor is also disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe