Ravindra S/O Vikram Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 9868 Bom

                                         1/3
                                                                     28.ABA.2351.2022.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2351 OF 2022

Ravindra s/o Vikram Jadhav                          .... Applicant.
     V/s
The State of Maharashtra                            .... Respondent.

Mr. Anandsingh S. Bayas a/w. Adv. Yash P. Sonavane for the
Applicant.
Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State


                                     CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATED : 27th September, 2022 P.C.:

1. Heard.

2. The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in crime no. 52 of

2022 registered with Sarakar Wada police station for the offence

punishable under sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC.

3. The contentions of Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the

applicant is, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

applicant deserves to be released as the offence is punishable

with imprisonment of seven year or less.

4. The case of the prosecution is, Ganesh, son of Vilas Mohite

was issued a forged appointment order appointing him on the post

akn 1/3

28.ABA.2351.2022.doc

of Inspector, State Excise by the applicant.

5. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is, there

is hardly any material on record to infer the complicity of the

applicant's involvement.

6. According to him, the applicant is into academics as he is

imparting education to the students, and it is only due to internal

rivalry which has prompted the false impleadment of the applicant

in the offence.

7. He would further urge that without prejudice to the rights

and contentions, the applicant is willing to deposit an amount as

has been alleged against him in the offence in question.

8. Learned APP would oppose the prayer.

9. I have appreciated the said submissions.

10. It appears that the applicant has issued a cheque for an

amount of Rs.5,20,000/- in favour of Vilas Mohite who has paid

initially an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- and subsequently Rs.80,000/-

to the applicant. The total consideration agreed between the

applicant and the complainant was Rs.12,00,000/- towards getting

the Ganesh appointed on the post of Inspector, State Excise.

11. The aforesaid material in the form of documentary evidence,

the statement of victims and other witnesses prima facie

akn 2/3

28.ABA.2351.2022.doc

demonstrate the complicity of the applicant in the commission of

the serious offence.

12. The post of the inspector, State Excise is to be filled in by

promotion and not from the selection from external candidates.

13. The applicant has not only forged the appointment order but

also drawn financial benefit out of such transaction.

14. There is enough material on record to directly connect the

applicant in the offence in question.

15. Apart from above, learned APP informs that there is one

more similar complaint against the applicant in which the

applicant has allegedly accepted an amount of Rs.13,00,000/-

from the victim.

16. Hence, no case for bail is made out. The applications as such

stands rejected.

                                     (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)




akn                                    3/3