MAHENDRA BHAGWAN SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                 -1-
                                                      aba1616.26.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1616 OF 2026

Pritee Fuljee Kokani                            .. Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another              .. Respondents

Mr. A. J. Nagode, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State.

                              AND
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1654 OF 2026

Mayur Balu Gavali                               .. Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another              .. Respondents

Mr. A. J. Nagode, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the State.

                              AND
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1668 OF 2026

Mahendra Bhagwan Shinde                         .. Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another              .. Respondents

Mr. M. V. Bhamre, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :
                                    -2-
                                                          aba1616.26.odt

1.        These applications for pre-arrest bail arise out of Crime No.

0695/2026 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, District

Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5),

318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 344, 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



2.       Since the facts of all the applications are identical, by consent

of both sides, these applications are heard and decided by common

order.



3.       First Information Report indicates that in the office of

Superintendent      of Police,   Nandurbar, it    was found that      the

Government funds in Police Training Centre, Dhule in Digital Salary

processing platform has been mis-appropriated by the employees

working therein. Allegation is that Senior Clerks, Manoj Buwa and

Mahendra Shinde were instrumental in submitting the bills in

Treasury Office. The total amount to the extent of Rs. 47,60,000/-

was transferred in the account of five individual police personnel. It

was also found that the individuals in whose account the amounts

were credited withdrew the said amount and paid part of the said

amount to the co-accused. After noticing the said mis-appropriation,

notices were issued to the concerned calling upon them to deposit
                                  -3-
                                                           aba1616.26.odt

the amount to the Government Treasury.          It is also claimed that

these five employees deposited total sum of Rs. 47,60,000/-.



4.      Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicants in both the

applications submit that the Applicants are not responsible for the

alleged mis-appropriation as they had no control or role in respect of

the Salary Processing System which was operated by co-accused

Manoj and Mahendra. They claimed that in good faith, after receipt

of amount in the account and when the co-accused told the

Applicants about the amount being credited inadvertently, they

transferred the said amount to the co-accused.        It is also claimed

that the said transfer was effected since there was no other

mechanism available for the Applicants to deposit the money in

Government Treasury directly.      They   further canvassed that after

issuance of notice, the Applicants have deposited entire amount of

alleged mis-appropriation in Government Treasury and as such

nothing is required to be recovered from them. It is further claimed

that the present case revolves around documentary evidence and

since    the   said   documents   are   available   with   the   office   of

Superintendent of Police, question of custodial interrogation of the

Applicants does not arise. In respect of Applicant in Anticipatory Bail
                                 -4-
                                                       aba1616.26.odt

Application No. 1616/2026, apart from other submissions, learned

Counsel for Applicant submits that the Applicant is a lady with

responsibility of a school going child and hence, her liberty deserves

to be protected.



5.    Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the Applicants by

referring tot he status of the Applicants to be police personnel. It is

claimed that the Applicants had knowledge about the amount being

transferred into their account unmeritedly and inspite of the same,

they failed to return the said amount to the Government, however,

shared half of the amount to the co-accused and retained half

portion thereof.   In order to support this submission, reference is

made to the account statement of each Applicant indicating so. It is

claimed that the evidence on record clearly shows collusion between

the Applicants and co-accused and therefore, this is a fit case for

custodial interrogation of the Applicants in order to ascertain the

manner in which the offence in question has been committed.



6.    It is a shocking state of affairs that in the office of

Superintendent of Police i.e. the head of the District, offence of such

nature has been committed and it has gone unnoticed for a
                                  -5-
                                                         aba1616.26.odt

substantial period. There is prima facie evidence on record to show

that without any amount being due to the Applicants, the amounts

between the range of Rs. 8,50,000/- to Rs. 14,90,000/- came to be

transferred into their accounts.     Said transfers are for the period

from June 2023 to July 2024. This indicates that over the period of a

years, in systematic manner, the Government funds are mis-

appropriated. Needless to say that the role of co-accused who were

handling the said portfolio is undoubtedly clear herein.            Now,

question arises as to whether the case of the Applicants that they did

not know about the mis-appropriation of money and bonafidely

transferred money to the co-accused could be accepted.



7.    Any prudent person, more particularly, a police personnel, if

comes to know about any amount being received into his/her

account without entitlement, the first thing which would be done by

such person is to place the said fact on record pointing out the same

to the superior officer.   An attempt would be made immediately to

reimburse the said amount to the Government Treasury. Apart from

the fact that no such attempt was made by the Applicants over a

period of one year, infact the evidence collected during the course of

investigation   and   more   particularly,   statement   of   account   of
                                -6-
                                                     aba1616.26.odt

Applicants, shows their involvement and collusion with the co-

accused in this crime.     Statement of account of each Applicant

indicates that a day on which the said amount was received, half of

the amount was withdrawn in cash. This amount is admittedly paid

to the co-accused.   Remaining half amount was retained by the

Applicants. This Court put a specific query to learned Counsel for

the Applicants to show reason and purpose for which said

withdrawal of half of the amount was done on the same day of its

credit into their accounts. Learned Counsel for Applicants failed to

provide any explanation much less satisfactory one. Thus, there is

sufficient evidence to indicate that Applicants had full knowledge

about the money being not due to them and shared half of the

amount with co-accused and retained remaining thereof.       In such

circumstances, after issuance of notice to them, deposit of money by

them is inconsequential.



8.   Needless to say that in every case deposit of amount would not

become a ground for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Applicants even

though Applicants are Government employees.         The question of

custodial interrogation is not the sole criteria for determining such

issue. The nature of offence and the manner in which it is committed
                                 -7-
                                                       aba1616.26.odt

would also assume importance and relevance for the purpose of

decision of pre-arrest bail application. Offence in question is without

doubt serious and the police personnel themselves have committed

said offence causing loss not only to the public exchequer but also to

the faith which is reposed upon the institution like police force. This

Court also finds substance in the contention of learned APP that

having regard to the evidence on record and as prima facie

involvement of the Applicants is found in the crime in question,

custodial interrogation of the Applicants would be necessary in order

to ascertain the exact manner in which the offence has been

committed.



9.    Insofar as contention of one of the Applicants, who is a lady,

that she has responsibility of a child to take care of, is concerned, it

is for the said Applicant to think about it before committed the crime.

Merely because Applicant is a lady, no pre-arrest bail can be granted

once her involvement in the crime like one in hand which involves

mis-appropriation of public money, is prima facie.
                                -8-
                                                      aba1616.26.odt

10.   Having regard to the above discussion, this Court does not find

it justified to grant any relief to the Applicants.   Hence, all the

applications stand dismissed.



                                               ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb