Vinod Sana Waghela @ Vijay Ramchandra Dhotre @ Sandip Baviskar v. The State Of Maharashtra

Prasad Rajput IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 2025 Vinod Sana Waghela @ Vijay Ramchandra Dhotre @ Sandip Baviskar .. Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Mayur Vinod Faria a/w Mr. Chintan Narendra Patel, Advocate for Applicant.

 Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for State.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MARCH 17, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Faria, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for State.

2.

Applicant before me has impersonated himself by changing his identity sometimes in the name of Vinod Sana Waghela sometimes as Vijay Ramchandra Dhotre sometimes as Sandip Baviskar. He is indicted in crime under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

Mr.Faria, learned Advocate for Applicant would persuade the Court to consider the Application for grant of bail to Accused No.1 who has been released on default bail since prosecution did not file the chargesheet within the stipulated time. He would persuade the

Court and argue that Accused No.1 is the main person behind the crime and Applicant is innocent. He has placed the chargesheet for perusal. On reading the chargesheet it is seen that the Applicant claimed to be a BMC Officer though his Identity Card as clerk working in the BMC Office is appended to the chargesheet. That apart prima facie it is seen that substantial amounts have been received in the bank account of the Applicant under the name and guise of Vijay Ramchandra Dhotre as the Bank Statement is annexed to the chargesheet. He would however persuade the Court to consider the fact that Applicant is not the same person and he has no nexus with Vijay Ramchandra Dhotre.

4.

Prosecution is required to ascertain the aforesaid fact whether the Applicant has impersonated himself as Vijay Ramchandra Dhotre and Sandip Baviskar and has received substantial amounts from the cousin brother of the First Informant in the first place which is evident from the witness statement of the Informant's cousin brother appended at page No.25 of the Application.

5.

Learned APP shall consider the aforesaid facts and file an appropriate report before the next adjourned date. 6.

It shall also be open for the Applicant to place on record any cogent material or evidence to show that he has no nexus with the

person called Vijay Ramchandra Dhotre to enable this Court to consider his Bail Application.

7.

Stand over to 24th March, 2025 (F.O.B.).

P.R. Rajput [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]