Bombay High Court
SAMBHAJI SITARAM BHALEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- MEHROZ K PATHAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied and the earlier interim protection is vacated.
Summary
The High Court examined an anticipatory bail application filed by Sambhaji Sitaraam Bhalekar, a former CEO accused of misappropriating Rs 6 crore through fraudulent loan approvals. The Court had earlier granted interim protection on 11‑Oct‑2024 conditioned on weekly police cooperation, which the applicant repeatedly ignored, including a specific appearance ordered for 6‑Oct‑2025. The prosecution highlighted the applicant’s continued non‑compliance and the seriousness of the alleged economic offence involving public funds. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing a stricter approach to white‑collar crimes and bail in such cases. Considering the applicant’s disregard for court orders and the gravity of the fraud, the Court refused the anticipatory bail and vacated the earlier interim protection. The application was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the applicant has repeatedly failed to comply with court‑imposed conditions of cooperation with the investigation
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged economic offence warrants denial of bail despite earlier interim protection
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- economic offence
- non‑compliance with bail conditions
- financial fraud
- white‑collar crime
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:11107
1
1714.24ABA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
26 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO.1714 OF 2024
SAMBHAJI SITARAM BHALEKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
APP for Respondent-State : Mr.P.D.Patil
…
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 09.03.2026
P.C. :
1] None for the applicant.
2] The learned APP for the respondent-State
submits that after obtaining ad-interim protection, the
applicant has failed to co-operate with the investigation
despite of the communication issued by the Investigating
Officer. This Court, vide order dated 11.10.2024, had
granted interim protection in favour of the applicant on the
condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned
police station once in a week and co-operate with the
investigation. The applicant has failed to attend and co-
operate with the investigation. Thereafter the matter was
2
1714.24ABA
listed on 30.09.2025. On that date submission was made by
the learned APP that the applicant has failed to comply with
the condition imposed while granting interim protection
vide order dated 11.10.2024 and there is subsequent FIRs
lodged against the applicant wherein the applicant is again
absconding and is not co-operating in the subsequent FIR
also filed under MPID Act. The said fact was noted in the
order dated 30.09.2025 passed by this Court. However, by
way of indulgence as a last chance, the applicant was
directed to remain present before the Investigating Officer
on 06.10.2025 at 1.00 p.m. pertaining to the present crime
i.e. Crime No.245/2024.
3] The learned APP further submits that the
applicant has failed to attend the police station or co-
operate with the investigation even on 06.10.2025 at 1.00
p.m. as directed by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2025.
The report to that effect along with station diary entry
dated 06.10.2025 taken in the general diary No.032 is
placed on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification.
3
1714.24ABA
4] Thus, taking into consideration continuous non
compliance of the condition imposed by this Court vide
order dated 11.10.2024 at the time of granting ad-interim
protection to the applicant and also non compliance of the
last order dated 30.09.2025. It appears that the applicant
has no regards to the orders passed by this Court. The
interim relief was granted in favour of the applicant on the
condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned
police station and co-operate with the investigation,
however, the applicant has failed to attend the concerned
Police Station after obtaining interim relief.
5] In so far as merits of the case is concerned, it
appears that the applicant is directly involved in the present
crime. The applicant is alleged to have acted mala fidely
and dishonestly and committed financial fraud by misusing
the documents of the loan files relating to the Raje Shivaji
Gramin Bigar Sheti Pat Sanstha, Parner. The applicant was
working as Chief Executive Officer of Raje Shivaji Gramin
Bigar Sheti Pat Sanstha, Parner and is alleged to have
4
1714.24ABA
defrauded the concerned Department and misappropriated
huge amount to the tune of Rs.6 crores along with other
accused persons. The applicant, namely, Sambhaji Bhalekar,
was working as Chief Executive Officer and has approved
the loan applications of 12 borrowers and transferred the
amounts from their accounts to the account of accused
Popat Dhawale and the applicant in connivance with the
other accused persons have cheated the investors, who are
poor and illiterate person of the nearby areas.
6] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S.
Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2013) 7 SCC 439 and in the case of Tarunkumar Vs.
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 NSC
1006, was pleased to hold that the economic offences
constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as a grave offences affecting the economy of the
5
1714.24ABA
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
7] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nimmagadda Prasad vs C.B.I., Hyderabad, (2013) 7 SCC
466, has held as under :
23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has
been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which
has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure.
Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious
repercussions on the development of the country as a
whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
[(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while
considering a request of the prosecution for adducing
additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under:
“5. …The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not
brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat
of moment upon passions being aroused.
An economic offence is committed with cool
calculation and deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the
community. A disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the
system to administer justice in an even-handed
manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye
unmindful of the damage done to the national
economy and national interest."
8] Thus, taking into consideration the allegations
against the present applicant wherein the applicant is
alleged to have been involved in huge misappropriation of
6
1714.24ABA
the public money, I am not inclined to entertain the present
application. The applicant has also failed to comply with the
conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated
11.10.2024. The applicant has also failed to comply with
the last order dated 30.09.2025 vide which the applicant
was given last chance to attend the investigation Officer and
co-operate with the investigation.
9] Taking into consideration above facts, I am not
inclined to entertain the present application for grant of
anticipatory bail. The Anticipatory Bail Application is,
therefore, rejected.
10] Needless to mention that the interim protection
granted vide order dated 11.10.2024 stands vacated.
[MEHROZ K. PATHAN]
JUDGE
DDC
Checking your session…