Pornima Mangesh Bhilawe v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Of P.S. Imamwada, Dist. Nagpur

aba45.21.O.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.45 OF 2021 (Pornima Mangesh Bhilawe Vs. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Imamwada, Nagpur) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. N.R. Rode, APP for Non-Applicant/State.

CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATE: 1 st FEBRUARY, 2021.

The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime 34/2020 registered with Police Station Imamwada, Nagpur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

The crime is registered on the basis of report dated 05.02.2020 lodged by Mr. Sandeep Salunke. 3.

Mr. Sandeep Salunke alleged that he was the victim of conspiracy hatched by the accused including the applicant and her husband Mangesh. The allegation is that Mr. Sandeep Salunke was induced to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused who promised him employment with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL). Adopting the same modus operandi, one Akash Rehpade was also induced by the accused to part with Rs.6,00,000/-.

aba45.21.O.odt 4.

I have perused the contents of the report and the submission of the prosecution is culled out in the order of the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the pre-arrest protection.

5.

Considering the allegations, I am of the considered view that no discretion can be exercised in favour of the applicant.

6.

She appears to have played a significant role in the job scam. It is not as if only the informant and Akash are cheated. According to the prosecution, the applicant and co-accused have cheated as many as ten persons, as per the information gathered till date, of Rs.50,00,000/- and more. 7.

The applicant has adverse antecedents and she is already facing prosecution under Section 406 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime 79/2020. 8.

I am satisfied that it would be unfair to deprive the Investigating Agency the opportunity of custodially interrogating the applicant. Her interrogation is imperative to give a direction to the investigation and to throw light on the various facets of the crime.

9.

The application is dismissed.

JUDGE NSN