Nitin Rangnath Jagtap v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:5796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 951 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 659 OF 2024 NITIN RANGNATH JAGTAP
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 28.02.2025 P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0681/2023, dated 21.12.2023, registered at Belwandi Police Station, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 424, 465, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3] This court by order dated 30.04.2024 granted interim protection to the applicant. The learned counsel submits that thereafter the applicant had cooperated with the investigation.
4] The case against the applicant by one Mr. Ashok Wagaskar is that he has purchased two tractors and one
sugarcane harvestor machine for an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- from Mr. Uttamrao Nalge. Thereafter, the same was handed over to the present applicant, on contract basis. However, it is stated that the applicant has taken certain signatures on documents and T.T. from the informant in order to provide the tractors and the machinery to sugarcane factory on rental basis and thereafter, illegally transferred the same to the accused no.3.
5] The learned counsel for the applicant has produced the bank statement at page 66 of the application, wherein he submits that payment of Rs.45,00,000/- was made to the original owner Mr. Uttamrao Nalge. He makes a statement that the transfer of payment is to the Mr. Uttamrao Nalge and further submits that applicant is the purchaser of the equipments and the tractors from the original owner of the property and he has ownership over the same.
6] Considering the ownership of the tractors and the machinery is itself disputed and that the applicant has produced certain bank statement, prima facie, indicating that the applicant has made payment to original owner and considering that the applicant has also cooperated with the investigation, the interim protection granted by order dated 30.04.2024 can be confirmed.
7] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 30.04.2024 stands confirmed, on the following terms:
i] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.
iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.
8] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.
9] 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.
10] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe