SHIVAJI PUNDALIK KENE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions arise out of the same set of facts and, therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of by this common order:

(2.) CR No. 275/96 is registered at Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station at Kalyan for offences 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. In that behalf complaint is lodged by one Smt. Radha Charandas Bhagat, working as Assistant Supreintendent, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Kalyan. In short, it is alleged that in Criminal Case No. 203 of 1996, accused Anant Pandurang Manchekar and Patty @ Patrick Fernandes-came to be released on bail on 28th May 1996 and 24th May 1996 respectively on their furnishing sureties. One Dattatraya S.Gaikwad and Pundalik, Shankar Patil stood sureties for Anant P.Manchekar, while Ganpat Thakre and Nathu Shankar Gite stood sureties for Fernandes. These two accused Anant Manchekar and Patty @ Patrick Fernandes did not attend the Court on the respective dates and therefore, notices were issued to the sureties and warrants were also issued against them. The sureties Pundalik Patil and Dattatraya Gaikwad remained absent in spite of service of notice and, therefore, the warrants were issued against them and on 15th September 1996, Pundalik Patil and Dattatraya Gaikwad were produced before the Court. At that time, Pundalik Patil stated that on the surety bond neither his signature is there nor has he signed and he has been deceived by one Vithal Arjun Bhoir. Thereafter on 24th September 1996, the said Pundalik Patil produced Shivaji Kane (Petitioner in Cri-Application No.2920/96) and Arjun Bhoir before the Court and Pundalik Patil stated that he had give him Rationing Card and solvency certificate to Vithal Bhoir. Shivaji Kene then stated that Sampat Kamble (applicant in Cri.Application No.3134/96) took his photograph and affixed the same on the surety bond and asked him to sign in the name of Pundalik S.Patil. Accordingly, police were directed to make enquiry and report in the matter. Hence, after enquiry report was submitted and on the basis of the same complaint has been filed by Smt.Bhagat.

(3.) NORMALLY , offences are such that the applicants should have been released on bail, but since it is a serious matter where personation and forgeries are committed in relation to the matter relating to Court, the Magistrate as well as Sessions Court, Thane have refused grant of bail. Applicants are in jail for the last two months. It is stated that charge-sheet is not yet filed. No doubt, the offences alleged against the petitioners are serious but they cannot be kept in jail indefinitely and, therefore, I find that by obtaining sufficient securely and imposing stringent conditions applicants can be granted bail.