Rajni Sunil Jadhav v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Khadan Akola Dist. Akola

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 849 OF 2025 (Sau Rajni Sunil Jadhav Vs. The State, thr PSO, PS Khadan, Akola, Dist Akola) _________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. Nilesh Tikar, Adv h/f Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N.S. Autkar, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.

DATE : 30.01.2026.

The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 698/2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 342(1), 341(1), 340(2), 337, 336(3), 336(2), 319(2), 318(4), 318(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Khadan, Akola. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for non-applicant/State. I have also gone through the case diary.

3.

Perusal of the case diary reveals that the husband of the applicant assured a job for the son of the complainant through the MPSC, for which the applicant obtained Rs. 33 lakhs and distributed it amongst the other co-accused namely Nilesh Rathod, Subhodh Patil, Rahul Mahale and Mahendra Rajput. In spite of that, they did not provide any job. Rather, they issued a false appointment order to the son of the complainant and therefore, the aforesaid offences

came to be registered against the applicant and other co-accused.

4.

The applicant is the wife of Sunil Jadhao, who introduced the complainant to the other co-accused. The allegation against the present applicant is that she was also present in the house when the son of the complainant showed his documents for the purpose of appointment. 5.

It is to be noted that no amount has been paid by the complainant or his son to the present applicant. The present applicant did not even accompany the son of the complainant to Mumbai to transfer the amount to other coaccused. The only allegation is that the main accused Sunil and the applicant called the complainant on 10.08.2024 for collecting the appointment letter of the son of the complainant. Whether the applicant has shared common intention with other co-accused is a matter of trial. 6.

As of today, nothing is required to be seized from the present applicant. Rather, it appears that the house of the applicant and the main accused has been transferred in the name of the complainant. The offence is allegedly committed by the husband of the applicant and other coaccused. Since, no role is attributed to the present applicant, a case is made out for confirmation of the interim order. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

i) The ad interim relief granted on 13.11.2025 is hereby confirmed.

ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station every Tuesday and Thursday, between 10.00 to 12.00, for three weeks.

JUDGE Belkhede