Bombay High Court
Ujwala Sitaram Naik vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 January, 2019
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 2 907.ABA.246.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2019
Sau.Ujwala Sitaram Naik Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.Mahendra M. Agavekar for applicant.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP, for State.
Mr.B.R.Kumbhar, MPC Police Station, Kalyan, present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 29th January 2019 PC :
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.I-459 of 2018 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan for offences under sections 420, 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged on 5th November 2018.
2. The case of prosecution is that the complainant Sachin Rajaram Kadam was in need of job. Accordingly the complainant meet the applicant and she had assured that job would be provided to him. The complainant was introduced to one Rohidas Rathod and it was agreed that the job would be made available to the complainant if amount of Rs.9 lakh is paid by him. The complainant paid Rs.5 lakh by cheque and thereafter he was in continuously in touch with Mr.Rohidas Rathod. The friend of the complainant had also paid Rs.2 lakh to the applicant out of which Rs.1 lakh was returned by her. The FIR was registered and investigation had completed.
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:41:09 :::2 of 2 907.ABA.246.2019.doc
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that primary role is played by Rohidas Rathod. The amount is parted to him. The applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation. She is suffering from ailment. He custodial interrogation is not necessary.
4. Learned APP pointed out that the applicant was present at the time of alleged transaction. She is party to the false representations made to the complainant. It is submitted that similar case was registered against the applicant in which she was arrested and subsequently granted bail.
5. On perusal of the FIR it is apparent that the applicant and co- accused were acting in connivance with each other. Apparently the applicant was also involved in similar cases in the past. Considering the role attributed to the applicant, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.246 of 2019 is rejected.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:41:09 :::