← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/482/2025allowed

Suresh S/O Harishchandra Ghodeswar v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ramnagar, Chandrapur, Tah. And Dist. Chandrapur

2025-07-22Hon'Ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke3 pages

2025:BHC-NAG:7180

(1) 931.aba.482.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.482 OF 2025 Suresh s/o Harishchandra Ghodeswar Vs.

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur District Chandrapur -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B. D. Sachdev, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. V. A. Thakare, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 22/07/2025 1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.143/2025 registered with Police Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that as per the allegation, the FIR is lodged by Pramod Wasudeo Alone on 28.02.2025, alleging that he got acquaintance with the present applicant who introduced him about the 'New Multi Purpose Foundation, Chandrapur' and the scheme floated under the name of 'Ayushman Bharat Yojna'. He has also introduced the other co-accused, who induced the complainant to pay sum of

(2) 931.aba.482.2025 Rs.10,04,000/- under the false promise of awarding a government contract and, thereafter, he was duped. 3.

Learned Counsel for applicant submitted that as far as the role attributed to the present applicant is concerned, he has introduced the informant with the other accused, except that there is no other allegation levelled against him. The other two accused are already released on regular bail. As far as the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is concerned, which is not required. In view of that the interim protection granted to the application deserves to be confirmed.

4.

Learned APP strongly opposed for the said application on the ground that during investigation, it revealed that the investigating agency could not recover the amount paid by the informant. On perusal of the first information report, the present applicant is the main accused and as per his direction, the amount came to be paid to the other co-accused. In view of that, his custodial interrogation is required for the recovery of the amount and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

5.

On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the FIR, only allegation against the present applicant is that he has introduced the complainant with the other accused and induced the

(3) 931.aba.482.2025 complainant to pay the amount and also demanded 50% of the commission after obtaining the contract. Thus, as far as the pecuniary gain is concerned, at this stage, no pecuniary gain is obtained by the present applicant. Nothing is to be recovered from him. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The application is allowed.

(ii) The interim protection granted to the present applicant by order dated 03.07.2025 is hereby confirmed on the condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and shall cooperate with the investigating agency.

(iii) A single failure to attend the concerned Police Station would lead to the cancellation of bail.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement and threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the present case.

The application is disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate