Savita Mangal Kulkarni v. State Of Mah. Thr. Nagpur (Sadar) Ps Nagpur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.92 OF 2024 (Savita Mangal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. S. Varma, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms Sneha Dhote, APP for the State.
CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED :- FEBRUARY 21, 2024.
By this application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.743/2023 registered with Police Station Sadar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.
The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by Binod Kumar Yamuna Oza who alleged that he is Journalist and running a channel namely Network 10. Their head office of the channel situated at Uttar Pradesh and State office is at Fort, Mumbai. As per the allegation on 22/11/2023 at about 12:00 p.m. he received a call from Mr. Pravin Take, District Information Officer, Nagpur District who enquired with him that one Savita M. Kulkarni i.e. the present applicant Post Bureau Chief from his Network 10 Channel has been appointed by him as the official representative for the State Legislature Winter Session-2023 and he informed that he has not
appointed anybody. It reveals to him that present applicant has forged the seal and signature and also forged the document showing that she is appointed as a Chief of the said channel for covering the news. It further revealed that her name in the official representative in the booklet for the Winter Session of the State Legislature was also appearing. Thus, she has prepared the forged documents by using his news channel logo. The applicant is not working with him. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant. 3.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations are false one as she is the authorised person and was permitted to cover the news items during the Winter Session of the assembly. Only to implicate her falsely the alleged crime is registered against her. Her custodial interrogation is not required, and therefore, she be released on pre-arrest bail.
4.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application on the ground that prima facie material i.e. the statement of the complainant sufficiently shows that he is not acquainted with the present applicant and present applicant has used the logo of his channel to cover the Winter Session of the assembly. The investigation is still in progress, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required and prays for rejection of the application.
5.
Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the investigation papers. During the enquiry by the Director of Information Officer, Nagpur District it revealed that present applicant has used the logo of the channel Network 10 which is owned by the informant, not only this she has prepared the forged seal and signature of the owner of the channel that is the informant. At this stage, the allegations are substantiated by the various documents which are collected during the investigation. Thus, prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. Considering the prima facie material the application deserves to be rejected. 6.
Hence, the application is rejected accordingly. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) *Divya