Kailas Shrikrishna Raut v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2024:BHC-AUG:2063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 878 OF 2023 Kailas Shrikrishna Raut ... Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents ......
Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate, Advocate for the Applicant Ms. Uma S. Bhosale, APP for Respondents - State Mr. Bharat N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Informant ......
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 31st JANUARY, 2024 ORDER :
1.
The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.344 of 2023 registered with Ambad Police Station, District Jalna for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.
FIR is lodged by Kailas Bhanudas Jadhav contending that he wanted to obtain a crop loan in the year 2020. Therefore, he approached the State Bank of India, Ambad Branch. He was asked to produce no dues certificate from the Canara Bank. When he approached the Canara Bank for the said certificate, he was informed that a loan of Rs.1,25,000/-
was sanctioned in his name in the year 2015, and the said loan amount is outstanding. Informant was shocked to know the said fact and told the bank officers that he had never approached the Canara Bank for obtaining loan, and therefore, he made application under RTI and obtained the loan documents and realized that present applicant has prepared forged documents and obtained loan in his name. The bank officers have not taken any security while sanctioning the said loan amount. Therefore the said loan was sanctioned to applicant by the bank officer in collusion with applicant. 3.
Heard learned advocate for applicant, learned APP for respondents - State and learned advocate for informant. Perused the papers of investigation.
4.
The loan documents are already seized and the said loan amount is already deposited by co-accused Ankit, an employee of Canara Bank. The investigation appears to be almost complete, and charge-sheet is likely to be filed in near future.
5.
The applicant was granted interim protection and he has co-operated in the investigation. In the facts of the
present case, pre-trial custodial detention of applicant is not necessary.
6.
The application is therefore allowed by confirming interim protection granted to applicant by order dated 23.06.2023.
[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE S.P. Rane