Narhari Liladhar Khawale v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps Khamgaon City Dist Buldhana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.

(Narhair Liladhar Khawale and another Vs. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Khamgaon City, Dist. Buldhana) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. H. V. Dhage, Advocate for Applicants.

Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for Non-Applicant/State. CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J.

DATE: 5 th SEPTEMBER, .

1.

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.400/2024 registered with Police Station Khamgaon City, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accusation against the present applicant is on the basis of the report lodged by Baliram Tryambak Sawarkar alleging that on 10.05.2020, he met with the present applicant and present applicant informed him that there is vacancy in a Health Department and if he pays Rs.10 lakhs, he can get the said amount. Accordingly, he has paid the amount and one forged letter in the name of the Health Department was issued to him to show that he is appointed in a Health Department as a Health Assistance. Subsequently, it revealed him to that the said appointment letter is a forged letter. Therefore, he approached to the police station and lodged the report. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the

crime against the present applicant.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, he submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence in fact the cheque against the another transaction as far as the custodial interrogation is concerned which is not required. The entire allegations leveled against the present applicant shows that he is neither signatory of the said forged letter nor he has issued the said letter. Considering the said fact he be protected by granting anticipatory bail. Learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the said application on the ground that during the investigation the statements of the various witnesses are recorded from which it reveals that in their presence the informant has received amount of Rs.10 lakhs from the present applicant and the appointment letter issued to the informant appears to be forged one. Thus, considering the same prima facie case is made out against the present applicant who has taken the disadvantage of the unemployment of the informant and duped him and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the investigation papers from which it reveals that during investigation the statements of the various witnesses are recorded from which it reveals that the present applicant by promising that they will provide the job to the informant obtained the amount of Rs.10 lakhs not only they have

obtained the amount but issued appointment letter in the name of the complainant which appears to be forged one. Considering the act of the present applicant and the involvement in preparation of the forged document no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

The application deserves to be rejected.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) NSN