BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.L.ACHLIYA, J
RUSHIKESH VIJAYANAND HANCHATE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of application for anticipatory bail. (Para 2) |
| 2. details of the allegations and context of investment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. argument submissions by applicants regarding their non-involvement. (Para 9) |
| 4. deposits made by applicants to aid other depositors. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. legal reasoning regarding dishonest intention. (Para 16) |
| 6. final decision to grant bail. (Para 17) |
2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.P.P. representing the respondent – State as well as learned counsel representing the intervener. Perused the F.I.R. and copy of charge sheet.
3. In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for applicants that the allegations made in F.I.R. prima facie discloses no offence against applicants and they have been unnecessarily implicated in the case. It is submitted that the informant had lodged complaint on 25/06/2020 that in the year 2016 Balaji Mohan Salunke, the Chairman of Sushiladevi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Osmanabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘said Credit Co-operative Society’] with whom the informant had acquaintance invited him at his house. When the informant visited the house of Balaji Mohan Salunke, the Direc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.