Sugalabai Chandrakant Kadam v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2167 OF 2025 Sugalabai Chandrakant Kadam .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent ----- Mr. Rushikesh K. Gaikwad i/b Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State. N. G. Jagtap, PSI, Pandharpur City Police, present. ----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date:
2025.11.21 14:43:11 +0530 SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM DATE : 20th NOVEMBER, 2025.
P.C. :
1.
The Applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 740 of 2024 registered with Pandharpur City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 470,471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). 2.
It is prosecution's case that the Applicant and her coaccused son submitted fake and false documents before the IIFL Home Finance and availed the loan amount of Rs.6,10,000/-. 3.
It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/3
Applicant is a lady and she is illiterate. The main allegations are against the her co-accused son. She is co-borrower. The Applicant has deposited the fraud amount before the IIFL Home Finance. Investigation is almost completed, and requested to allow the application.
4.
It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant and her son had filed false and fake documents by preparing the fake stamps of the Government Officers and availed loan. Learned APP further submitted that the main allegations are against the son of the Applicant. Hence, requested to pass appropriate order. 5.
I have heard both learned counsel, perused F.I.R. and documents produced on record.
6.
The allegations against the Applicant are that she is coborrower of the loan, which is availed by producing false and fabricated documents. She is a illiterate lady. As per say of the Investigating Officer, the main allegations are against the son of the Applicant, who is co-accused. Moreover, the Applicant has deposited the loan amount before the IIFL Home Finance. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required, and I pass the following order:
Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/3
ORDER
i. Application is allowed.
ii. In the event of arrest, the Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with No. 740 of 2024 registered with Pandharpur City Police Station, on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
iii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.
7.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.
8.
It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
9.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. ( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/3