Rohit Ashokrao Mane v. The State Of Maharashtra

Nikita

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1794 OF 2024 Rohit Ashokrao Mane ... Applicants V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent NIKITA KAILAS DARADE NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.07.11 18:01:25 +0530 Mr. Nikhil Pawar for the Applicant.

Ms. Megha Bajoria, APP for the State.

Mr. Pravin Shivaji Kanchan, Probationary Police Officer, Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli.

CORAM

: MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : 11th JULY, 2024.

P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Nikhil Pawar for the Applicant and Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP for the State.

2.

Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.199 of 2024 dated 1st June 2024 registered at Vishrambag Police Station, District Sangli for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the IPC. 3.

There are four accused persons in the present case. The

accused No.1 is the brother of the applicant and the accused No.3 and 4 are LIC agents.

4.

The informant is the wife of the accused No.1 and sister-in-law of the applicant. It appears that there is a matrimonial dispute between the informant and accused No.1 and they are living separately. It is the case of the informant that in September 2023, she came to know that an LIC policy in her name was encashed and its proceeds were realized. She made enquiry in the Office of the LIC branch, when came to know that her signature was forged by the accused No.1 i.e. her husband and the LIC policy was illegally encashed. The allegation is that the accused No.1 received the proceeds after the LIC policy was encashed and the amount was transferred to the account of the applicant. 5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation of signature of the informant being forged is not against the applicant at all. It is submitted that the applicant and his brother i.e. accused No.1 are having their respective businesses and in that context, they transfer amounts to each other and, therefore, it cannot be said that the proceeds received from encashment of the LIC policy were illegally transferred from the account of the

husband. It is further informed that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were granted anticipatory bail that the accused No.1 was arrested and he was granted regular bail.

6.

It is submitted that this Court may grant relief to the applicant as he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. 7.

Learned APP submits that specific allegations are made against the applicant about the money being transferred to the account, showing his involvement in the present case. 8.

This Court has perused the statement of the informant leading to the Registration of the FIR. It shows that a specific allegation is made against the accused No.1 i.e. husband of the informant that the said accused forged the signature of the informant to illegally encash the LIC policy in his name. At this stage, the material on record does not show any allegation against the applicant regarding forgery of the signature of the informant. The only allegation appears to be that the amount illegally encashed concerning the LIC policy pertaining to the informant, was transferred into the account of the applicant. 9.

Considering the fact that specific allegation regarding forgery of signature is not made against the applicant, this Court is

inclined to grant relief in this application. 10.

Accordingly the application is allowed in the following terms:

a) In the event the applicant is arrested in connection with C.R. No.199 of 2024 dated 1st June 2024 registered at Vishrambag Police Station, District Sangli, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing PR Bond of 15,000/- ₹ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

b) The applicant shall remain present before the Investigating Officer on 15th July 2024 between 10.00 a.m, and 12.00 noon and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

c) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any other persons concerned with the case. d) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation. 11.

Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant shall be

liable to be cancelled.

12.

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of. (MANISH PITALE, J.)