Bombay High Court

DIGAMBAR KASHINATH PUTHEWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Digambar Kashinath Puthewad, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a fraud case (Crime No. 148/2025) alleging misappropriation of Rs.2,87,165 collected from bank customers. The FIR alleged he failed to deposit the collected sums, while the applicant contended that he had transferred Rs.2,27,100 to the informant and that the time limit for deposit was not specified. He offered to voluntarily deposit Rs.60,000 and argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court noted the lack of clarity on the deposit timeline and the applicant’s partial repayment, finding reasonable doubt about the informant’s allegations. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a PR bond of Rs.15,000, a surety, and conditions prohibiting witness contact, evidence tampering, and requiring cooperation with investigators, subject to the Rs.60,000 deposit within two weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite allegations of misappropriation and suppression of facts.
Whether the absence of a stipulated time for depositing collected amounts affects the bail decision.
Whether the applicant’s voluntary offer to deposit Rs.60,000 negates the need for custodial interrogation.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 316(5), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
misappropriation
financial fraud
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

23 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 414 OF 2026

DIGAMBAR KASHINATH PUTHEWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. Yogesh G. Birajdar, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent/State

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 148/2025,

registered with Gangakhed Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences

punishable under Sections 316(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita.

2. The First Information Report indicates that the present applicant is a

collecting agent who was supposed to collect money from the customers of

the bank and deposit the same into their respective accounts. The allegation is

that, during the period from 12.09.2024 to 12.12.2024, he collected a total

sum of Rs.2,87,165/-, however, did not deposit the same and, as such,

committed misappropriation of the said amount.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that, as observed by the

23 ABA 414.2026.odt 1 of 4
learned Additional Sessions Court in the order rejecting his pre-arrest bail

application, the applicant had transferred a sum of Rs.2,27,100/- to the

informant during the period from 23.10.2024 to 12.12.2024. It is his

submission that the applicant had suppressed the said fact, making it difficult

to accept the allegations made in the First Information Report. Apart from

this, it is his contention that there is absolutely no material on record to

indicate the time within which the amount collected from the customers was

required to be deposited in the bank. He, therefore, seeks protection of the

liberty of the applicant. He makes a statement that the applicant is ready to

deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/-, which is allegedly retained by him, within a

period of two weeks from today.

4. Learned APP opposed the grant of the application by pointing out the

allegations against the applicant. It is his submission that, as observed in the

order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the amounts collected from the

customers were not deposited into their respective accounts, which indicates

that the present case involves misappropriation of money.

5. Prima facie, perusal of the First Information Report as well as the

material collected during the course of investigation does not indicate the

time period within which the amounts collected from the customers were

required to be deposited. Apart from this, admittedly, during the period from

23 ABA 414.2026.odt 2 of 4
23.10.2024 to 12.12.2024, the present applicant transferred a total amount of

Rs.2,27,100/- into the account of the informant. The informant has

suppressed the said fact. This creates a doubt regarding the allegations made

by him in the First Information Report.

6. In any case, in view of the voluntary statement made by the applicant

with regard to depositing a sum of Rs.60,000/-, custodial interrogation of the

applicant does not appear to be necessary. Hence, the application deserves to

be allowed. Accordingly, the application stands allowed in the following

terms:

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant, in connection with
Crime No. 148/2025, registered with Gangakhed Police
Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount.

(iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.

(v) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.

7. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited within a period of two

23 ABA 414.2026.odt 3 of 4
weeks from today, this order shall stand vacated and application would
stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

8. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp

23 ABA 414.2026.odt 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…