← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/157/2019rejected

Ramesh Gyanu Chavhan v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S., Shirpur,

2019-03-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Murlidhar Ganpatrao Giratkar2 pages

aba157.19 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.157/2019 Ramesh Gyanu Chavhan ..vs..

The State of Mah., thr. P.S.Shirpur, Taluka Malegaon, District Washim ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel for the applicant. Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh, Addl.P.P. for the State.

CORAM

: M.G.GIRATKAR, J.

DATED : MARCH 13, 2019.

1.

Heard learned counsel Ms Divya Joshi for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh for the State.

2.

Perused First Information Report. As per the First Information Report, Vijay Bankar, friend of complainant, took complainant to his friend Jagdish with a promise to give real gold. Complainant wanted to test a coin of real gold given to him by Vijendra, and, thereafter, he went to a goldsmith who found that it was real gold. Thereafter, he approached to Vijendra with cash of Rs.2.00 lacs. Vijendra took them to loneliness place and one unknown person gave gold coins to the complainant and Vijendra took Rs.2.00 lacs. After return to Nagpur, the complainant tested those gold coins from a goldsmith and found that those were not gold but were of brass coins and, therefore, the complainant lodged the report. .....2/-

aba157.19 21 3.

During course of investigation, Vijendra was arrested and he gave Rs.1.00 lacs. The applicant is the person who had given said brass coins.

4.

Custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Two applications for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the applicant came to be rejected by the Sessions Court.

5.

In such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal application strands rejected and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-