RAMESH BAPURAO RANGARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for applicant for quite some time and when the Court shows its inclination not to grant anticipatory bail in-favour of the applicant he submits that he wish to withdraw the application. Normally, the Court accepts such requests and grant permissions to withdraw the applications. However, in the present case, in view of the nature of the accusations made against the present applicant this Court is of the view that such permission cannot be granted in favour of the applicant and his application has to be dismissed on merit.

(2.) Shri Maroti Shantaram Nikhade who is employee of C.T.P.S. Chandrapur is having one son and one daughter. His daughter is elder. Son Pravin is educated upto 12th Standard. It appears that after 12th Standard he was not pursuing his further studies and he was in search of employment. co-accused Praful Helwate who is one of the close relatives of Maroti approached to him on 12/6/2016 and made enquiry with complainant about son Pravin and also inquired about his education qualification. Upon that it was revealed to co-accused Praful that Pravin is educated upto 12th Standard and is in search of employment. From the first information report it appears that, that time co-accused Praful allured the complainant by saying that there are certain vacancies for post of clerk in W.C.L. and requisite forms are available with other co-accused Shankar Gedam. With lucid words co-accused Praful created confidence in the mind of first informant. It was also revealed to the first informant that other co-accused Shankar Gedam and present applicant Ramesh Rangari are deeply acquainted with the higher officials of the W.C.L. and he can take efforts to provide job in W.C.L.

(3.) Believing the such, the first informant along with co-accused Praful had been to the house of other co-accused Shankar Gedam. Thereafter the present applicant was called, that time it was revealed to the first informant that the present applicant is having a good "setting" with the W.C.L. however for that his son has to fill a form and has to pay Rs. 14,00,000/-. That time, the first informant shown his unwillingness since he was not having the required amount. That time all accused persons impressed upon first informant that they will help first informant to sell out his plot to raise amount. That time, the present applicant also informed that the amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- can be paid in two instalments. It was also stated by the present applicant that cheque will not be accepted when it was offered by the first informant by saying that the officials of the W.C.L. only accept cash amount and thereafter the present applicant in a due course obtained Rs. 7,00,000/- in cash from the first informant. This amount was paid after selling plot on 22/6/2016. On the very same day, the said amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- were handed over to the present applicant in presence of other co-accused and also testimonials of his son.