Rajesh Bhalchandra Kale v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 of 2 926.ABA.2645.2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2645 OF 2019 Rajesh Bhalchandra Kale Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Ritesh Thobde for applicant.

Smt.Geea P. Mulekar, APP, for State.

CORAM :

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 5th December 2019 PC :

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.1023 of 2018 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur for offences under Sections 420, 468, 420, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2.

The prosecution case is that on 27th December 2018, accused Godabai Gaikwad and unknown own woman visited bank with withdrawal slip of Rs.19,000/-. Informant asked her to produce Aadhar Card. He found variation in photo on Aadhar Card and bank record. He stopped payment. Godubai informed that she intended to withdraw money from account of Khairunabai by bogus Aadhar Card. The name of applicant was disclosed during investigation. It is the case of prosecution that the accused used to prepare bogus Aadhar Card in the name of Godabai Shinde, Laxmibai Gundal, Kerabai Kasbe, Ambubai Namdeo etc and withdraw amounts from bank accounts by joining hands with Laxmibai and others. After withdrawal of the amount the same was being distributed between them. During the course of investigation other accused were

2 of 2 926.ABA.2645.2019.doc arrested. During their interrogation it was revealed that false documents were prepared. The applicant used to collect fabricated documents and used to hand over the same to other accused. During interrogation it was also revealed that the applicant used to wait outside the bank along with accused Rahul Chavan. After withdrawal of the amount by the woman, the said amount was collected by the applicant and other accused and some commission was paid to ladies. The interrogation of two accused revealed the complicity of applicant as stated above. Considering the above circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, ABA No.2645 of 2019 is rejected.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST