✦ Supreme Court of India · 06 May 2026

Supreme Court · 2026

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Considering the allegations made in the FIR andprima facie case in favour of the applicant so also the factthat the amount is already deposited, I am inclined to passthe following order:ORDER(i)The application is allowed and disposed of

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.325 OF 2026Aditya s/o Sanjay Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra__________________________________________________________________Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.and Registrar's Orders. Shri G.R. Bhake, Advocate for applicant. Shri C.A. Lokhande, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.DATE : 30.04.2026.1.Apprehending arrest in connection with CrimeNo.650/2026 dated 24.02.2026 registered with PoliceStation, Khadan, District Akola for the offences punishableunder Sections 408 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,“IPC”), the applicant/sole accused has approached thisCourt.2. The First Information Report (FIR) was registeredat the behest of Ankush Kisanprasad Awasthi, who wasworking on the post of Regional Manager, Spandan SpurtiFinancial Ltd, Akola. In short, it is alleged in the FIR that theapplicant was occupying the post of Branch Manager, from12.07.2021 till 07.10.2023 while discharging his dutythough accepted the amount from the customers towardsthe repayment of loan amount, did not deposit the said withfinancial company. It was further alleged that total amountinvolved is 1,12,230/-. ₹ 221 aba325.26.odt3.In this background, the prosecution has come upwith a case that the applicant is not entitled for the bail.4.The learned counsel for the applicant hassubmitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedentsand after registration of FIR, he has deposited the entireamount with the said financial company. He furthersubmitted that the initial act of not depositing the amountwith the said financial company was unintentional. 5.The learned APP though opposed the applicationhas submitted that the amount is already deposited with thesaid financial company and the applicant can be called tocooperate with the investigating agency. 6.With the assistance of the respective counsels, Ihave gone through the record of the case. The offenceregistered is under Section 408 of the IPC. The amountinvolved is 1,22,230/-, which the applicant has already₹deposited. Considering the allegations made in the FIR andprima facie case in favour of the applicant so also the factthat the amount is already deposited, I am inclined to passthe following order:ORDER(i)The application is allowed and disposed of. 321 aba325.26.odt(ii)In the event of arrest in connection with CrimeNo.650/2026 dated 24.02.2026 registered with PoliceStation, Khadan, District Akola for the offences punishableunder Sections 408 of the Indian Penal Code, applicant –Aditya S/o Sanjay Sharma shall be released on bail onfurnishing a PR bond of 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five₹Thousand only] with one solvent surety in the like amount.(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned PoliceStation on 5th May & 6th May 2026 between 12:00 noon to03:00 pm.(iv) The applicant shall cooperate with theinvestigating agency and shall not tamper with theprosecution evidence or influence the witnesses directly orindirectly.(v)The applicant shall not leave India without priorpermission of this Court. (Rajnish R. Vyas, J.)Wagh

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Considering the allegations made in the FIR andprima facie case in favour of the applicant so also the factthat the amount is already deposited, I am inclined to passthe following order:ORDER(i)The application is allowed and disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 408.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Supreme Court of India, on 06 May 2026. The bench was RAJNISH R VYAS.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments