Bombay High Court

RAVINDRA KASHINATH PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, holding that the applicant is prima facie liable for the alleged offences and custodial interrogation is necessary.

Summary

The applicant, a Gramsevak, was charged with offences under IPC sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409 read with Section 34 for allegedly diverting funds of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana scheme by creating bogus beneficiary profiles and facilitating disbursement to dummy individuals. He filed an anticipatory bail application, contending that he had no role in the final payout, that the allegations were vague and that the real culpability lay with senior officials and the Panchayat Samiti. The State opposed bail, arguing that the applicant was directly involved in verification of records, failed to explain discrepancies highlighted in a show‑cause notice, and that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the fraud. The court examined the record, noted the applicant’s responsibility for primary records, the existence of unexplained transactions, and the prima facie case of systematic misappropriation, and held that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in view of the alleged economic offences.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and procedural lapses affect the grant of bail.
Whether the applicant’s role as Gramsevak makes him liable under the cited IPC sections.
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 409, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471

Subjects

anticipatory bail
economic offence
misappropriation of public funds
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
IPC sections
white‑collar crime
custodial interrogation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38436
                                                                      ABA-470-2025.odt



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 470 OF 2025
                                  Ravindra Kashinath Patil
                                          VERSUS
                                  The State of Maharashtra

          Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for applicant
          Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State
                                               ...

                                                         CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                         DATE  : AUGUST 21, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.           The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime

          No. 0258 of 2024, registered on 23.09.2024, at the Shindkheda Police

          Station, District Dhule for offences punishable under sections 417,

          420, 465, 468, 471, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

          (for short ‘IPC’).


          2.           It is the case of the prosecution that the First Information

          Report lodged by the Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shindkheda,

          Santosh Kisan Savkare, alleges a systematic financial fraud in the

          implementation of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) scheme at

          Varul-Ghusare, Taluka Shindkheda District Dhule. While working as

          Gramasevak, the present applicant allegedly diverted state housing


                                           Page 1 of 6
                                                           ABA-470-2025.odt



funds by manipulating scheme approvals. He created bogus beneficiary

profiles, disbursed government funds to dummy individuals using dead

persons names, and accepting old photos as proof for fake claims.

Thus, crime was lodged and chargesheet came to be filed.

Consequently, the anticipatory bail application filed by the present

applicant was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule vide order

dated 22.01.2025.


3.         Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that this is a

case of deliberate implication. He further contends that disbursement

of the funds was not the part of his duties and he has no role in the

final payout. He contends that the allegations against present applicant

are vague, omnibus and false.    He submits that any misappropriation

of public funds under the government scheme could not have occurred

without the active negligence on the part of the field officer for

preparing primary records. He argued that the crime was falsely

registered against the the present applicant who worked as Gramsevak

merely to shield senior officials responsible for the wrongful

disbursement of funds.   Furthermore, he draws attention of the court

to the fact that this was State Government Scheme where the

executing agency with control and jurisdiction is the Panchayat Samiti,

                                Page 2 of 6
                                                           ABA-470-2025.odt



whereas the Gram Panchayat merely acts as authority to submit the list

of eligible candidates for further examination and disbursement by the

Panchayat Samiti. He highlights that in the inquiry report found no

misappropriation of funds took place and no funds credited to the

present applicant’s account. He points out that the registration of the

crime suffered from an unexplained delay, whereas the applicant

himself informed the authorities about disqualified persons in 2019,

the departmental inquiry was conducted in 2021, and the offence was

registered three years later. Therefore, learned counsel for the

applicant submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is

unnecessary.


4.         The learned APP vehemently oppose the grant of pre-arrest

bail, contends that the applicant is involved in a grave white-collar

economic offence committed during the period from 25.08.2021 to

20.12.2021, while functioning as the Gramsevak at Varul-Ghusare,

Dist. Dhule. He submits that the delay in lodging the First Information

Report occurred because the administrative staff were busy with

election duties, which delayed the preliminary departmental inquiry.

He highlighted that the applicant failed to give a satisfactory reply to

the show-cause notice issued by the Block Development Officer on

                                Page 3 of 6
                                                             ABA-470-2025.odt



20.12.2021 regarding financial irregularities under the Pradhan Mantri

Awas Yojana. He further points out major discrepancies between the

letter sent by the applicant on 10.12.2019, which listed 13 ineligible

beneficiaries, and the inquiry report, which identified 4 entirely

different beneficiaries. Moreover, 15 transactions remain unexplained

regarding the misappropriation of public funds. Therefore, custodial

interrogation is necessary to investigate the financial misappropriation

and specific role of the present applicant during his tenure as

Gramsevak.


5.         Perusal of the record shows that the Gram Panchayat’s role

is recommending candidate lists and that the Gramsevak has no active

involvement in the disbursement of funds. Being the Gramsevak at

Varul-Ghusare District Dhule during the relevant period from

25.08.2021 to 20.12.2021, the applicant is directly responsible for

verification and maintenance of primary records. Any improper

disbursement     of   welfare     funds       necessarily   begins      with

misrepresentation in the records prepared by the subordinate official.

Thus, the present applicant cannot evade criminal accountability by

shifting the entire blame onto subordinate officers at the Panchayat

Samiti Level. Furthermore, the applicant’s defense regarding his letter

                                Page 4 of 6
                                                                  ABA-470-2025.odt



dated 10.12.2019 is not substasntiate when compared with the inquiry

report. Rather than clarifying the fraud, his letter identified 13

ineligible beneficiaries, while the inquiry uncovered 4 completely

different   fake   beneficiaries,      with       15   transactions   remaining

unexplained. This clearly shows that deliberate suppression of facts.


6.          Prima facie perusal of the record shows that the delay in

lodging the First Information Report because of a procedural delay

that does not absolve the present applicant from his failure to submit a

satisfactory explanation regarding the misappropriation of public

funds. Further, the record reveals that the applicant failed to offer any

satisfactory explanation to the show cause notice dated 20.12.2021

issued by the Block Development Officer.


7.          The alleged crime involves the systematic misappropriation

of public welfare funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

Economic offences regarding public money constitute a grave crime

that affects society. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the

present applicant is necessary to uncover the said financial fraud, to

identify fake beneficiaries and determine the present applicant’s role as

a Gramsevak in said crime.



                                    Page 5 of 6
                                                           ABA-470-2025.odt




8.       In view of above, application stands dismissed.


                                              (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                             Page 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…