← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/1770/2023rejected at admission stage

Jalindar Bhimrao Babar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024-01-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi2 pages

2024:BHC-AUG:1420 1 53-ABA-1770-23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1770 OF 2023 JALINDAR BHIMRAO BABAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Mr. Angad Kanade, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for Respondent - State ...

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2024 PER COURT :

1.

Applicant apprehends arrest in Crime No.372/2023, registered with Georai Police Station, Beed, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

FIR is lodged by Triveni Dattatray Bhonde, District Mission Manager, District Mission Management Unit, Beed, on 21/07/2023, alleging that applicant was appointed as Ward Coordinator, Sirasdevi Ward in Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission, Taluka Mission Management Unit, Georai. He was entrusted with certain work in regards to Saving Groups of Women and Women Self Help Groups. Applicant committed criminal breach of trust and cheated members of self help groups. Applicant dishonestly induced members of self help groups to deliver money on the pretext of giving them food license.

3.

Heard learned advocate for applicant and learned SVH

2 53-ABA-1770-23.odt Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the investigation papers.

4.

It is appears from investigation papers that applicant has collected amount of Rs.1500/- per head from poor and illiterate members of women self help groups, on the pretext of obtaining food license and amount of Rs.700/- per group on the pretext of submitting online bank loan proposal. He has collected total amount of Rs.2,33,400/-. Applicant had no authority to collect the said amount.

5.

There is sufÏcient material on record showing involvement of applicant in committing offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. For effective investigation applicant's custodial interrogation is necessary. Applicant is, therefore, not entitled for discretionary relief.

6.

Application is, therefore, rejected.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH