SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
JAYKUMAR S/O BHAGWAN GORE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR – Respondent
APEAL 506/2022



O-APEAL-506-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2022

Jaykumar s/o. Bhagwan Gore

...Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

……

Mr. Ashok P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam and

Mr. Vishwajeet Mohite i/b. Mr. Siddharth Karpe for the Appellant.

Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent -State.

Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for

Respondent No.2.

……

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

V.G.BISHT, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 9TH JUNE, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 14TH JUNE, 2022

ORDER: (PER : V.G.BISHT, J.)

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

parties and is taken up for final disposal.

3.

This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14 -A of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Trupti

1/13

O-APEAL-506-2022.doc

Act, 1989 (for short, “the SC ST Act”) against the order dated 6th

May, 2022 passed below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Bail Application

No. 94 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions

Judge, Vaduj, thereby rejecting the application under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC”) in

connection with C.R. No. 92 of 2022, registered with the Dahiwadi

Police Station, District – Satara, for the alleged offences punishable

under Sections 193, 199, 200, 419, 420, 423, 205, 209, 467, 426,

465, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the

I.P.C.”) and under Sections 3(1) (f) and 3 (1) (g) of the SC ST Act.

4.

The prosecution case in brief is as under :

(a)

First informant Mahadev Piraji Bhise cultivates

agriculture lands bearing Gat Nos. 769, 781 and 782

alongwith his family members. The informant belongs to

“Mang’ caste. His father, namely, Piraji Vishnu Bhise died on

8th October, 2016.

(b)

According to prosecution, adjacent to land bearing

Gat No. 769, the land bearing Gat No. 768 is owned and

Trupti

2/13

O-APEAL-506-2022.doc

cultivated by Jaykumar s/o. Bhagwan Gore i.e. present

appellant, who is the President of the Chhatrapati Shivaji

Education, Mayani. For getting approach road to the

institute from the land owned by informant, the President of

the said institution submitted an application with the

Assistant Director, Town Planning, Satara. In view of the

Rules contemplated under Satara Pradeshik Yojana Vikas

Niyantran, the 15 meter road passing through Gat No. 769

was mandatory. The present appellant had executed an

affidavit bearing No. 4300/2020 dated 11th December, 2020

before the learned Tahsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Man

(Dahiwadi).

(c)

The prosecution alleges that though the father of

informant had expired on 8th October, 2016, the present

appellant alongwith other accused created forged Aadhar

Card and by impersonating the said deceased, prepared

affidavit and the same was submitted with the office of

Assistant Director, Town Planning, Satara and Sub Divisional

Officer, Khatav with an intention to cheat informant and his

Trupti

3/13

O-APEAL-506-2022.doc

family members. Accordingly, an FIR came to be lodged.

5.

Pursuant to the registration of offence and as the investigation

of offence was set in motion, the present appellant approached the

learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj by moving

an application under Section 438 of the Cr.PC and after hearing the

parties, the learned Special Judge was pleased to reject the said

application. Hence, this appeal and prayer for pre-arrest bail.

6.

We have gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, Dahiwadi Division, Camp Vaduj, Satara in

response to the present appeal.

7.

Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits

that since the alleged offence revolves around the documents and the

fact that purported affidavit dated 11th December, 2020 mentioned in

the FIR is a got up document having do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top