Sau. Kalawati W/O. Waman Dambare v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Durgapur Chandrapur

1 aba757.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 757 OF 2016 (SAU.KALAWATI WAMAN DAMBARE...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. DURGAPUR, DIST. CHANDRAPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicant.

Shri Neeraj Patil, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 15, 2017.

Heard.

The applicant, woman aged about 54 years, apprehending arrest in crime registered against her and her husband for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has sought pre-arrest bail. The crime is registered against the applicant on the complaint lodged by Ashish Sarode that he and some other persons have given a huge amount to the accused on assurance given by the accused that they would seek appointment for those persons in the employment of M.S.E..B. The accusations against the applicant are that her signature is found on some stamp paper on which it is written that the persons who had given the amount will not be cheated.

The application is opposed on the ground that statements of as many as four persons show involvement and active participation of the applicant in the crime. The

2 aba757.16 applicant claims to be a housewife and has stated that she is not involved in any other crime/ offence earlier. These facts are not disputed by the non-applicant.

This Court has granted protection to the applicant by interim order dated 17th November, 2016. The Investigating Agency has not made any grievance that the applicant has misused the protection granted by this Court and has not co-operated with the investigation. The nonapplicant has not been able to show that the custody of the applicant is required for further investigation. In the above facts, in my view, the interim order granted on 17th November, 2016 is required to be confirmed. It is confirmed. The application is allowed accordingly.

JUDGE RRaut..