Bombay High Court
VENKATESH BAPURAO KULKARNIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court held that the anticipatory bail previously granted extends to the present FIR, confirming the interim relief.
Summary
The applicant, Venkatesh Bapurao Kulkarni, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with FIR No. 0451 of 2026 alleging misappropriation of funds of the Rajasthan Multi State Cooperative Society, invoking IPC sections 406, 409, 420, 120‑B, 34 and Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act sections 3 and 4. He contended that he had already been granted anticipatory bail in a related case (ABA No.9 of 2025) and that, per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, the bail should extend to the present FIR as the allegations are identical. The State opposed any extension of bail. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s observations that bail granted in a principal proceeding covers other FIRs unless special enactment offences require a fresh application. Finding the applicant’s situation analogous, the Court confirmed the interim bail order dated 5 August 2025, thereby allowing the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail granted in a prior case extends to a subsequent FIR with identical allegations.
- Whether offences under a special enactment (Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act) necessitate a fresh bail application despite prior bail under general law.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s precedent in Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab is applicable to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 34, 406, 409, 420
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail extension
- special enactment
- IPC
- Maharashtra Depositors Protection Act
- cooperative society fraud
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
994-ABA-1284-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
994 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1284 OF 2025
Venkatesh Bapurao Kulkarni
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…..
Mr. P. B. Vaidya, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent – State.
...
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2026
P. C. :
1. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0451
of 2026 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, for the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
2. The First Information Report alleges misappropriation of the funds of
Rajasthan Multi State Cooperative Society, Parali, Vaijnath, District Beed.
The allegation is against the office bearers so also the employees including
the manager of the society.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
granted pre-arrest bail in ABA No.9 of 2025 in connection with Crime No.
234 of 2024. It is his submission that there are a number of offences
registered in connection with the Rajasthan Multi State Cooperative Society
Page 1 of 3
Kiran Kawre
994-ABA-1284-2025.odt
Limited, Parali Vaijinath.
4. It is his submission that the allegations in all first information reports
are identical in nature. According to him, the present case is duly covered by
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh
Sidhu Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors 1. To support his submissions, he has
made reference to paragraph 20 thereof.
5. Learned APP opposes grant of any protection to the applicant.
However, it is not in dispute that, in ABA No.9 of 2025, the liberty of the
applicant has been protected by this Court by order dated 3 February 2025.
6. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that in respect of several
crimes registered in connection with Rajasthani Multi State Cooperative
Society Limited, the nature of allegations in all the Courts is identical. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Sidhu (supra) in
paragraph 20, has made the following observation:
“20. The investigating officer in the principal proceedings will be
free to file supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of the material
collated during investigation of other FIRs. We also make it clear
that the other offences not part of the special enactments can also
be tried by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation.
We also further direct that in case the petitioner has been granted
bail in connection with the principal proceeding/criminal case to
which the other cases have been clubbed, the bail so granted must
enure to the petitioner's favour in the other FIRs now clubbed as
well. We further clarify that if the principal FIR is limited to offence
under the general law/Penal Code but the subsequent FIRs contain
allegations attracting offences under the special enactment or
certain other IPC offences and if the bail granted is only for some
offences under the general law, the Special Court is entitled to
insist for a fresh bail application to be filed by the petitioner in
1 (2025) 5 SCR 2648
Page 2 of 3
Kiran Kawre
994-ABA-1284-2025.odt
relation to those offences including under the Special Act. The said
bail application(s) shall be decided on its own merits in accordance
with law.”
7. These observations are squarely applicable to the case in hand. In
such circumstances, this Court finds no justification not to confirm interim
relief granted by order dated 5 August 2025. Hence, application stands
allowed in terms of interim relief. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed by confirming interim order dated 5
August 2025.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…