ABA No. 391 of 2025 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MEHROZ K PATHAN
Outcome
Allowed
Hence the following order :ORDER(i)The application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66.I have gone through the interim order dated 24.03.2025 aswell as the investigation papers made available by the learned APP. Aperusal of the investigation papers shows that the Applicant has cooperated with the investigation in pursuance of the interim order dated 24.03.2025. The Applicant was…
Judgment
1 29.ABA-391-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 391 OF 2025RAVINDRA CHHAGANRAO PRABHALEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Wakure Sanjay A Addl.PP for Respondents/State : Mr. A. S. Shinde… CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.DATE :16th MARCH 2026PER COURT :
Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent/State.
The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail application in connection with FIR No. 316 of 2024dated 08.07.2024 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, DistrictBeed for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 409,420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and4 of the MPID Act, 1999.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025 has protected the Applicant with condition to attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation. He further submits that the Applicant has attended the 2 29.ABA-391-2025.doc police station and cooperated with the investigation in pursuance to the order dated 24.03.2025. The investigation as regards the presentApplicant is almost complete. The custodial interrogation of the Applicant may not be necessary.
The learned Counsel further submits that the Applicant was working as a Passing Officer in one of the branches of DnyanradhaMulti-State Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. at Beed. As part of his duties, he used to encourage investors to deposit money in the Bankfor obtaining greater benefits. Apart from this role, there are no other allegations against the Applicant of misusing public funds. Theinterim order may therefore be confirmed, and the Applicant may be released on bail. The Applicant is not having any other criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any further conditions that maybe imposed by this Court.
As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the application on the ground that the Applicant is one of the accused persons charged with committing a huge fraud and misappropriation of public money. The Applicant is specifically named by witnesses. One such witness/Kedarnath, in his statement dated 02.03.2025, has specifically named the present Applicant as the person who induced gullible investors to invest large amounts on the promise of receiving high returns. The Applicant failed to pay back the promised returns to the investors and has thus cheated the complainant and other investors. There are entries in the account statement of the Applicant 3 29.ABA-391-2025.doc showing that the Multi-State Co-operative Bank transferred amounts into the account of the present Applicant. The custodial interrogation of the Applicant is therefore necessary. The present crime is aneconomic offence involving several aspects that require investigation, which cannot be effectively carried out without custodial interrogation of the Applicant. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, and the said application may therefore rejected.
Operative part
I have gone through the interim order dated 24.03.2025 aswell as the investigation papers made available by the learned APP. Aperusal of the investigation papers shows that the Applicant has cooperated with the investigation in pursuance of the interim order dated 24.03.2025. The Applicant was working at the Beed branch of the Multi-State Co-operative Society Ltd. as a Passing Officer, and there are no allegations of any other fraud committed by him except for promoting the scheme circulated by the Multi-State Co-operativeSociety to various investors. The Applicant promoted the scheme formulated by the Bank along with other officers of the Bank. Theentries showing amounts transferred into the account of the Applicant refers to his salary, as he was working as a Passing Officerat the Beed branch of the Multi-State Co-operative Society..Be that as it may, in pursuance of the interim order dated24.03.2025, since the Applicant has cooperated with the investigation and there are no allegations of the Applicant violating any conditions, I am inclined to protect the Applicant. Theapprehension of the learned APP that the Applicant may flee from the 4 29.ABA-391-2025.doc ends of justice can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. Hence the following order :ORDER(i)The application is allowed. (ii)The interim order dated 24.03.2025 is hereby confirmed. (iii)Applicant is directed to attend CID, Beed on 23rd, 30th March of2026 and 6th and 7th April of 2026 between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm.and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge-sheet if any against the Applicant. (iv) The Applicant is directed not to tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten the complainant or the witnesses. (v)The Applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless so exempted by the trial on emergency conditions. (vi)The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two of the near relatives. (vii)A single violation of the aforesaid conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail of the Applicant on that ground. (viii)With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed of. MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGENAJEEB..
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the following order :ORDER(i)The application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; MPID Act, 1999 — ss. 3, 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.