SACHIN BABURAO KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:2439



                                                      1
                                                                           1985.25ABA

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1985 OF 2025

                    Sachin Baburao Kamble,
                    Age : 35 years, Occu. Service,
                    R/o. Kini, Tq. Bhokar,
                    Dist. Nanded.                                 .. APPLICANT
                                                                 (Orig. Accused)
                              VERSUS

                    1]       The State of Maharashtra
                             Through the Superintendent of Police,
                             Nanded, Tq. & District Nanded.

                    2]       The Investigation Officer,
                             Police Station Bhokar,
                             Dist. Nanded.                         .. RESPONDENTS

                                                   ...
                              Advocate for the applicant : Mr.D.M.Shinde
                              APP for Respondent-State : Mrs.P.J.Bharad
                                                   …

                                               CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                                               DATE        : 13.01.2026

                    P.C. :


                    1]             Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and

                    the learned APP for the respondent-State.


                    2]             The applicant has filed present application

                    seeking     anticipatory   bail   in    connection    with   Crime
                             2
                                                1985.25ABA

No.495/2025, dated 15.10.2025, registered with Bhokar

Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishable

under Section 409, 420 r/w. 34 of the IPC.


3]         The case of the prosecution is that the Cluster

Head HDFC Bank has lodged the first information report

alleging that he was working as Cluster Head for "Bachat

Gat" and under him, there are 8 branches. Out of that, he

alongwith the Manager Nandkishor Nevale looked after the

affairs of the HDFC Bank, Bhokar. Prior to this one Dashrat

Gaikwad and Pankaj Pawar was Sales Officer "Mahila

Bachat Gat". Kunal Rathod, Officer of Bank was assigned

with work for formation of "Mahila Bachat Gat" and

sanction loan applications of "Mahila Bachat Gat". One

Dayanand Godbole was the Officer of the Bank, who was

assigned with duties to check the members of "Mahila

Bachat Gat" and give information about loan. The cashier

Sachin Kamble i.e. present applicant was assigned with

duties to pay or credit the cash of loan to the members of

"Mahila Bachat Gat". After formation of Gat, one ATM card
                              3
                                                  1985.25ABA

is issued by the President for withdrawal of amount,

presence of the President and Secretary is required and

repayment of loan can be done by member. Some

complaints are received by the bank regarding "Mahila

Bachat Gat", hence, the informant and his companion

visited the Gat and after enquiry, it is noticed that the

misappropriation is done in 10 "Mahila Bachat Gat" to the

tune of Rs. 30,86,260/-.


4]          The allegation is preparation of Bogus Members

in Ramabai Bachat Gat and disbursement of loan amount to

Pankaj Pawar by the applicant without presence of members

of Bachat Gat. In other Gat also, the allegations are that

without presence of members of Bachat Gat, the amount is

withdrawn and paid by the applicant-Sachin Kamble to

Pankaj Pawar and the entire amount is not received by the

Bachat Gat. One member has refused for loan still her file is

processed and amount is handed over to Dayanand Godbole

by the applicant. The amount is accepted by the Pankaj

Pawar for depositing in the loan account but it is not
                               4
                                                      1985.25ABA

deposited in the bank by Pankaj Pawar.


           Hence,    Pankaj        Pawar   is   responsible   for

preparation of Bogus Members as well as withdrawal of

amount from the account of "Mahila Bachat Gat" and after

accepting EMI amount from the members of "Mahila Bachat

Gat", the same is not deposited in their accounts. The

Officer, Krushan Rathod, is responsible for sanctioning the

loan without verifying the details. Dayanand Godbole is

responsible for giving permission to withdraw the amount

behind back of the members and KYC verification is also not

done.   Cashier    Sachin     Kamble       is   responsible   for

disbursement of the amount without verifying the members

and without their presence. Thus, the complainant has

prayed for appropriate action to be taken against the

accused persons.


5]         The learned counsel Mr.D.M.Shinde for the

applicant submits that the applicant was working on the

direction of the Higher Officer of the Bank. The applicant

was handling the Bank accounts of Mahila Bachhat Gat and
                             5
                                                 1985.25ABA

most of the time Mahila Bachat Gat members did not visit

the Bank, the Sales Officer was given job of the withdrawal

of money and deposit of money even though the applicant

Cashier was not ready initially, however, upon oral

instructions, the Manager had allowed the said withdrawal

and deposits by the Sales Officers. The applicant was issued

show cause notice on 20.05.2024 and has submitted

explanation on 22.05.2024 and 23.05.2024. The applicant

was suspended on 12.06.2024 and after enquiry, the

applicant was terminated on 03.07.2024. The learned

counsel further submits that the applicant has discharged

his duties to the satisfaction of his Seniors and has

unblemished record. Even there are no allegations that the

applicant himself has received the amount for the Mahila

Bachat Gat. The allegations in the FIR itself would reveal

that the CCTV Footage shows that the applicant handed

over the amount to one Pankaj Pawar, who was working as

Sales Officer as per the practice followed in the Bank and

hence    the    applicant    cannot    be    charged     for

misappropriation. The applicant at the most can be charged
                              6
                                                  1985.25ABA

with negligence in performing duties and cannot be said to

have committed cheating or criminal breach of trust. The

applicant was pressurized to make payment of Rs.95,000/-

for the fraud committed by the Sales Officers. There is delay

in lodging the FIR. The custodial interrogation of the

applicant is not warranted. The applicant is not having

criminal antecedents and the applicant is ready to abide by

any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence,

the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.


6]          As against this, the learned APP Mrs. Bharad

strongly opposes the present application on the ground that

the applicant was working as Cashier in the HDFC Bank

where the Mahila Bachat Gat i.e. Woman Self Help Group

accounts were maintained. The applicant and other co-

accused had fraudulently shown sanction of loan to the

proxy members of the Bhachat Gat by inducting them

without consent of the Mahila Bachat Gat and thereby

misappropriated the fund of Bachat Gat for wrongful gain to

themselves. The details of all Mahila Bachat Gat in respect
                              7
                                                  1985.25ABA

of the amount siphoned of by the applicant with the

assistance of the co-accused is given in the first information

report after conducting due enquiry by the Bank Officials,

the applicant is held responsible for committing fraud upon

the Mahila Bachat Gat Members, who were sanctioned loan

by the said Bank. The statement recorded during the course

of investigation by the Investigating Officer substantiates

allegations made in the FIR. The Cluster Head of the HDFC

Bank had specifically stated the role of the present

applicant, who was working as Centillion Teller and had not

followed   the   Bank   process    and   handed    over   the

disbursement of the huge amount of loan of Rs.27,14,000/-

to the Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar, instead of handing over

the loan amount to the Group members, who had availed

the loans from the Bank. The statement of the Anand

Kadtan is also recorded wherein he has given details of at

least 10 Mahila Bachat Gats, which were cheated of their

money out of the loan sanctioned by the Bank in the name

of the said Mahila Bachat Gat. The statement further reveals

the role of the present applicant, who was entrusted
                              8
                                                 1985.25ABA

responsibility of verifying the details of the member of the

Mahila Bachat Gat and hand over the amount to them, the

applicant has fraudulently handed over the amount to the

said Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar.


7]          The statement of Poornima Gautam Gaikwad,

who is the one of the member of Ramabai Mahila Bachat

Gat, also speaks about the role of the present applicant,

who had handed over the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the

Pankaj Pawar out of the amount sanctioned in the name of

Chhaya Raju Sarpate, Pranita Sarpate, Pallavi Parade and

Aruna Pawade, who were bogus members, inducted in the

Ramabai Mahila Bachat Gat. The applicant along with other

co-accused got Rs.7,24,858/- sanctioned in the name of the

aforesaid four bogus members and paid Rs.4 lacs to the

aforesaid members whereas remaining amount of Rs.3 lacs

was handed over by the present applicant to the Sales

Officer, Pankaj Pawar. Likewise, there are other statements

of the members of Kedarnath Mahila Bachat Gat, Pragati

Mahila Bachat Gat, Nari Shakti Mahila Bachat Gat and
                              9
                                                      1985.25ABA

Shital   Balaji   Mahila   Bachat   Gat   levelling     identical

allegations of sanction of huge amounts of loan in the name

of bogus members inducted in the aforesaid Mahila Bachat

Gats and handing over them some amounts whereas

remaining amount has been handed over by the Cashier,

Sachin Kamble i.e. present applicant to the Sales Officer,

Pankaj Pawar. The Vigilance Cell report on siphoning of

EMI and Full / Partial SHG/JLG loan amount also specifies

the role of the present applicant in handing over the said

amount to the Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar. Thus, the role of

the present applicant is clearly made out from the aforesaid

statements, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the

present applicant is necessary.


8]           I have gone through the allegations made in the

first information report and have perused the investigation

made available by the learned APP. Perusal of the

investigation papers show that the Cluster Head of the

HDFC Bank, Nanded had issued a communication on 7 th

August, 2024 to the Police Inspector, Bhokar, Dist. Nanded
                            10
                                               1985.25ABA

thereby informing about misappropriation and wrongful

disbursement of loan amount to the tune of Rs.29,74,000/-,

pertaining to 7 SHG / JLG groups with connivance of one

Dayanand Godbole and Centillion Solutions Services Pvt.

Ltd. Teller Sachin Kamble i.e. present applicant as he had

handed over the said amount to the Sales Officer, Pankaj

Pawar instead of giving it to the borrowers. It is further

communicated by the Cluster Head that the Sales Officer

are not authorized to collect EMI amount in cash or by

other means from the Group member / Borrowers, even

though the Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar had collected money

from group members and failed to deposit the collected

amount in respective borrowers’ loan accounts. It was

further revealed that the Transaction Assistant Dayanand

Godbole had handed over the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- of

03 groups to Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar even though the

members of the Self Help Group was not present at the time

of disbursement. It was also communicated that Centillion

Teller Sachin Kamble i.e. present applicant has also

wrongfully disbursed the huge amount of Rs.27,14,000/- to
                             11
                                                 1985.25ABA

the Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar, instead of the group

members, who had availed SHG /JLG loan from the Bank.

The statement of the Anand Suryakant Kadtan, Cluster

Head of HDFC Bank further shows the involvement of the

present applicant in handing over the huge amount to the

co-accused i.e. Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar. The statements

of the Poornima Gautam Gaikwad, Shakuntalabai Ratan

Tarfe, Vijayabai Sahebrao Tarfe, Shobha Maroti Khupse and

Chandabai Kailas Andhare and the various other members

of the Self Help Group and Shital Penshanwar and other

members of the Self Help Group show that the bogus

members were inducted in the Self Help Group and the

huge amounts were sanctioned as loans to the Self Help

Groups. The certain amounts out of the sanction loan

amount were given to the members of the Self Help Group

whereas the huge amount out of the sanction amount was

handed over by the present applicant–Sachin Kamble, who

was working as Centillion Teller in the Bank to the Sales

Officer, Pankaj Pawar. The vigilance report submitted by the

HDFC Bank which also forms part of the investigation
                              12
                                                   1985.25ABA

papers shows the role of the present applicant, who had

violated the bank procedure by allowing the Sales Officer,

Pankaj Pawar to use the group ATM card and PIN on MATM

i.e. in the case of 3 SHG and 1 JLG accounts during

disbursement, that too, in the absence of entire group

members / authorised signatories, but also failed to report

the issue with his seniors.


9]          The applicant is also alleged to have violated

the bank process by providing loan amount in cash to the

Sales Officer, Pankaj Pawar, in the absence of the group

members, which is also captured in the CCTV footage.


10]         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment 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
                                   13
                                                               1985.25ABA

involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed

seriously and considered as a grave offences affecting the

economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing

serious threat to the financial health of the country.


11]         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."
                                 14
                                                        1985.25ABA

12]         Thus, there is ample material collected by the

Investigating Officer to show the involvement of the present

applicant   in   the   present        crime.   Thus,   taking   into

consideration of gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to

exercise discretion to protect the present applicant. The

investigation is complex in nature, as such, the custodial

interrogation of the applicant would be necessary. Hence

the present application is hereby rejected.


                                        [MEHROZ K. PATHAN]
                                              JUDGE
DDC