Chandrakala W/O Shivaji Raut v. The State Of Maharashtra
924-ABA-1194-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1194 OF 2022 CHANDRAKALA W/O SHIVAJI RAUT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A. B. Bhosale h/f. Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar APP for Respondent : Mr. K. S. Patil ...
CORAM :
S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE :
27-09-2022 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
2.
It has been alleged against the applicant that she had raised crop loan by furnishing forged documents of the field which was not owned by her.
3.
The prosecution has a specific case that number of persons have obtained crop loan from the I.D.B.I. Bank by producing false and concocted documents. It has been transpired in the investigation that the husband of the applicant was well aware that the field Gat No.136/3 of village Mauja Pisore Bk., Taluka Shrigonda, was not owned by him. Even though, the loan was
924-ABA-1194-22.odt raised in the name of applicant Chandrakala. Her defence is that she did not know about the submission of loan application and raising the loan. At the same time, she has also a case that her husband used to remain ill and required huge amount for medication. If these facts are considered, her defence does not appear to be correct. The amount of Rs.4,19,000/- was raised as a crop loan. The 7/12 extract was forged and there are many similar cases. It also appears from the facts of the case that while receiving 7/12 extract of field Gat No.136/3, the applicant was well aware that it was incorrect Gat Number, even though she raised loan.
4.
Perusal of the papers and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P., the Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential to know how the said documents were forged and crop loan was raised. Hence, the application stands dismissed.
( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE rrd