Bombay High Court
KIRAN JAIPRAKASH KUWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that, given the seriousness of the alleged fraud, the forged nature of the approval documents and the necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail could not be granted.
Summary
The High Court examined an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by an Education Officer accused of authorising fraudulent appointments of over a thousand teaching and non‑teaching staff, with fabricated approval orders and Shalarth IDs. The prosecution alleged that the applicant forged approval orders dated February 2024 to backdate appointments from 2015‑16, resulting in salary payments amounting to crores of rupees. The Court noted that the relevant files and proposals were not traceable in the Education Department and that the documents produced by the applicant appeared forged. Citing the Supreme Court’s view that custodial interrogation is essential in serious cases, the Court held that granting anticipatory bail would impede investigation. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be granted in a case involving alleged forgery and large‑scale appointment fraud.
- Whether the alleged forged approval orders and fabricated documents disqualify the applicant from bail.
- Whether the need for effective custodial interrogation outweighs the relief of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- appointment fraud
- education department scam
- salary arrears
- custodial interrogation
- fabricated documents
- public prosecution
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1368 OF 2026
ARJUN Kiran Jaiprakash Kuwar …Applicant
VITTHAL Versus
KUDHEKAR The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.24
20:50:23 +0530 Mr. Pralhad Dnyanoba Bachate a/w Sanket Sonawane, Padmanabh
Sangale & Onkar A. Wable, for the Applicant.
Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, Addl. PP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Hiray, GP & PP, present through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Sadanand Date, DGP, Maharashtra State, present through Video
Conferencing.
Mr. Sachindra Pratap Singh, Commissioner, Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra, present through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Sandeep Karnik, Commissioner of Police, Nashik, present
through Video Conferencing.
ACP Sandeep Mitke, Crime Branch, Nashik City, present.
DySP Jyoti Karandikar, EOW, present.
PI Dattatray Chaudhari, EOW, Nashik Rural, present.
Mr. Mohinuddin Tashildar, Deputy Secretary, School Education
Department, present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-
1. This Court passed the following Order on 22nd September
2026:
“1. This is a very serious matter concerning a scam
involving Shalarth IDs, whereby bogus teachers were
shown to have been appointed or although they were
appointed subsequently their appointments have been
shown from earlier dates. In many cases the
appointments were shown about 10 years earlier than
Page 1
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
the actual appointment and salaries were paid to them.
2. Approximately, more than 1,000 teaching and
non-teaching staff are shown to have been appointed,
and date of their appointments shown are almost 10
years old. However, in the Education Department of the
State of Maharashtra, the proposals submitted by the
heads of the respective education institutions are not
traceable. In most of the cases, there is no record of the
issuance of advertisements or of applications submitted
by the candidates pursuant thereto for appointment.
There is also no record of interviews having been
conducted or of appointments made of such teachers,
and yet approvals have been directly granted. Even the
orders granting such approval do not mention these
detail.
3. Thus, the magnitude of the scam is substantial,
where more than 1,000 teaching/non-teaching staff, who
are shown to be appointed about 10 years ago and, in
fact, there is no record of their appointments have been
paid salary. Despite this, the investigation is being
conducted in defective manner.
4. The Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1368 of 2026 filed by Dr. Kiran Jaiprakash Kuwar,
who was the Education Officer at the relevant, shows
that Mr. Mahendra Ramdas Patil was appointed with
effect from 15th June 2016 and that salary was paid to
him pursuant to the approval order dated 20th February
2024 passed by the Applicant. The Applicant was the
Education Officer at the relevant time. The said approval
was granted in respect to the proposal dated 27th
September 2021 submitted by the Headmaster of M. F.
Taral Vidyalay and M. R. Mahajan Jr. College, Anturli,
Taluka Muktainagar, District Jalgaon. The file of said
proposal maintained by the Education Department of the
State of Maharashtra is not traceable.
5. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the files of all
these approximately more than 1,000 teaching/non-
Page 2
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
teaching staff who have been paid salary in this manner
are not traceable in the Education Department of the
State of Maharashtra.
6. In view of this position, the statement of the
Headmaster of said M. F. Taral Vidyalay and M. R.
Mahajan Jr. College, Anturli, Taluka Muktainagar, District
Jalgaon, recorded by Police on 3rd July 2025, is very
significant. It shows that what was sought was the date
and details of the approval order and the details of the
Shalarth ID Orders. In fact, what is required to be asked
to him and documents to be sought are regarding the
proposal on the basis of which the approval was granted
including details regarding the date of issuance of
advertisement, the approval obtained by the School
Authorities for such advertisement, the number of
candidates who applied to the school pursuant to such
advertisement, the dates on which the interviews of such
candidates were conducted, marks obtained by each
candidate in such interviews, the details of selection
process of the candidates declared successful and their
appointment letters. The relevant information also shall
contain details regarding the staffing pattern, the
manner in which the vacancy arose, the eligibility of the
candidates, their applications, the selection process and
the appointments orders.
7. It is unfortunate that, despite the scam being of a
huge magnitude and involving crores of rupees, prima
facie the State of Maharashtra is not conducting the
investigation properly.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on
instructions, states that the records of almost all these
1,000 appointments are not traceable in the Education
Department.
9. ACP Sandeep Mitke, who is present in Court,
states that he has been appointed as Investigating Officer
only on 13th August 2026 and prior to his appointment,
the Investigating Officers had been changed from time to
time.
Page 3
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
10. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, the
Secretary, Education Department and Commissioner for
Education shall appear through Video Conferencing.
11. Stand over to 23rd September 2026 at 03:00 pm.
12. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next
date.”
(Emphasis added)
2. Pursuant to above Order, today, Mr. Sadanand Date, DGP,
State of Maharashtra and Mr. Sachindra Pratap Singh,
Commissioner of Education, are present through Video
Conferencing.
3. Mr. Date, DGP, states that effective steps will be taken to
supervise the investigation by very senior officers of the Police
Department and looking to the gravity of the offence effective and
elaborate investigation will be carried out under the supervision of
the higher officials.
4. Mr. Hiray, learned Public Prosecutor who appears through
Video Conferencing also submitted that effective steps will be
taken for conducting thorough investigation. He submits that apart
from the public money involved in the crime quality of education is
also affected if such type of teachers/non-teaching staff is
appointed.
Page 4
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
5. Mr. Sachindra Pratap Singh, Education Commissioner gave
information regarding steps taken by the State of Maharashtra so
that such appointment of teachers/non-teaching staff by
Schools/Educational Institutions is completely stopped.
6. Heard Mr. Bachate, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional PP, for the
Respondent-State of Maharashtra as regards the merits of the
Anticipatory Bail Application No.1368 of 2026.
7. By the said Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the
Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.164
of 2025 registered with Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik City, for
the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 340(2), 338, 336(3),
318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).
8. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of the statement of Mr.
Bhausaheb Bhikanrao Chavan, Deputy Director of Education.
9. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Addl. PP, for the Respondent-State of
Maharashtra, states that the subject FIR is concerning
Page 5
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
appointments of about 96 teaching/non-teaching staff in various
Schools/Educational Institutions which are in the jurisdiction of
Nashik Division. There are about 125 Accused. Learned Additional
PP submits that, in fact during investigation role of the First
Informant who is the Deputy Director of Education is also seen.
10. As per the prosecution case relevant for deciding this
Anticipatory Bail Application, the appointments of Mr. Mahendra
Ramdas Patil (Clerk) and of Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane (Assistant
Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan (Assistant
Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke
(Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak), who are shown to have been
appointed from 15th June 2016/1st July 2015/1st July 2015 and
1st June 2016 respectively, were never appointed on those dates
and inspite of this a proposal has been sent on 27th September
2021 with respect to the appointment of Mr. Mahendra Ramdas
Patil and on 10th December 2021 with respect to the appointments
of said Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane, Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan and
Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke, by the Headmaster of M. F.
Taral Vidyalaya and M. R. Mahajan Jr. College, Anturli, Taluka
Muktainagar, District Jalgaon. By showing these appointments
Page 6
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
from those dates, approval has been granted by the Applicant to
these appointments by approval dated 20th February 2024 bearing
Outward No.972 of 2024 for appointment of said Mahendra
Ramdas Patil as Clerk (Page 331) and also granted approval to
appointment of said Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane (Assistant
Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan (Assistant
Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke
(Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) by approval dated 20th
February 2024 bearing same Outward No.972 of 2024 (Page 325).
On the basis of said approval orders, Shalarth IDs have been
created and the payment was made to these teachers/non-teaching
staff from the said dates of appointments.
11. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying
on the letter dated 9th February 2026 of the Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, submitted that the record of
these teachers/non-teaching staff is not available in the office of
the Education Officer.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Bachate, learned Counsel, submits
that the Applicant has issued only one order of granting an
Page 7
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
approval dated 20th February 2024 (Page 331) which is in favour
of Mr. Mahendra Ramdas Patil as Clerk and the approval is given
from 15th June 2016. He submitted that the approval order
allegedly signed by the present Applicant dated 20th February
2024 approving the appointment of Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane
(w.e.f. 1st July 2015), Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan (w.e.f. 1st July
2015) and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke (w.e.f. 1st June
2015), as Assistant Teachers/Shikshan Sevaks (Page 325) is forged
and fabricated approval order with which the Applicant is not at all
concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the anticipatory bail
application be allowed.
13. The record shows that the Applicant is Deputy Education
Inspector in the Office of the Deputy Director of Education from
25th August 2020 till 3rd October 2024. The Applicant was
holding additional charge as Education Officer (Secondary)
(Additional Charge), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon for four months and
during said period the said approval dated 20th February 2024 was
given.
14. It is significant to note that approval order dated 20th
Page 8
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
February 2024 (Page 331) which according to learned Counsel
appearing for the Applicant is genuine order, although at Serial
No.13, makes reference to the Office Sanction Note, however, the
same is kept blank. Said Page Nos.331 and 332 are scanned and
reproduced herein below for ready reference:
Page 9
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
Page 10
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
15. As already noted, the proposal for the approval of said Mr.
Mahendra Ramdas Patil as also the papers concerning the
appointment of about more than 1,000 teaching/non-teaching staff
are not traceable in the relevant Education Department.
16. In this background of the matter, it is significant to note that,
as it has been observed in the Order dated 22nd September 2026
passed by this Court that the papers are not traceable of the
Page 11
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
proposal, learned Counsel for the Applicant tenders one Office
Note dated 11th March 2024. He submits that the Applicant has
procured this Office Note from the Office of the Deputy Director of
Education. It is surprising and shocking that when this matter was
argued yesterday these documents were not produced. These
documents are produced for the first time today after this Court
passed Order dated 23rd September 2026 which is set out herein
above.
17. Perusal of the said Office Note dated 11th March 2024
shows that the same has not been approved. On many pages
blanks are to be founds in the documents annexed to the said note.
There is no Outward Number and no signatures appears. There is
nothing to show that said Office Note is approved.
18. The said Office Note along with the annexures is taken on
record and marked “X” for identification and the same is paginated
from Pages 1 to 59. Few of the documents (Pages 1 to 59) showing
that, prima facie, these documents are forged and fabricated are
set out herein below:
i. Copy of letter dated 6th March 2024 issued by the present
Page 12
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
Applicant addressed to the Deputy Director of Education (Page 9 of
compilation produced by the Applicant) is scanned and reproduced
herein below:
Page 13
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
The same clearly shows that although the said letter is dated 6th
March 2024, the same is received on 11th March 2023.
ii. There is certificate (Page 10) given by the present Applicant
for inclusion of the name of said Mahendra Ramdas Patil in the
Shalarth ID Pranali. The said certificate is undated. The same is
scanned and reproduced herein below:
Page 14
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
Page 15
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
iii. The proposal forwarded by the concerned School for
inclusion of name of said Mahendra Ramdas Patil in Shalarth ID
Pranali (Page 13) is also undated. There is alteration. A scanned
copy of the same is reproduced herein below:
Page 16
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
iv. Although in the approval order dated 20th February 2024
admittedly issued by the Applicant honorarium/remuneration of
Rs.25,000/- per month of said Mahendra Ramdas Patil has been
shown in the alleged proposal of the School (Pages 16-17) the
same is shown as Rs.8,000/- per month.
The above are few examples of the fraudulent nature of
documents.
19. It is very clear that in view of the Order dated 22nd
September 2026 passed by this Court, the Applicant is creating
fabricated documents for the purpose of making submission that
documents mentioned in the said order are available.
20. The Supreme Court in the decision of State Rep. by the C.B.I.
v. Anil Sharma 1, has held that the custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect
who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e. Section 482 of BNSS.
The effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful information and also
1 (1997) 7 SCC 187
Page 17
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
materials which would have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is
well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he
interrogated. The said observations of the Supreme Court are
squarely applicable to the present case. Thus, for effective
interrogation of a suspected person in a serious case, custodial
interrogation is necessary.
21. It is settled legal position that grant of anticipatory bail is
very extraordinary remedy. The said power is not to be used in
regular course.
22. As noted earlier, the offence is very serious where large
number of teaching/non-teaching staff have been shown to be
appointed from the year 2015-16 and the arrears of salaries
running into crores of rupees have been paid to them, however,
there is no record available with the Education Department on the
basis of which the approvals are granted.
23. It is even the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant
that approval order issued in favour of Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane,
Page 18
Arjun
911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC
Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke
(Pages 325-326) is a fabricated order.
24. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for
grant of anticipatory bail.
25. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
x
Page 19
Arjun
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.