Bombay High Court
SACHIN PRAKASH BHADREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail, holding that the applicant’s alleged participation in the fraud justifies custodial interrogation.
Summary
The applicant, a Rural Housing Engineer, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR alleging fraud under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriating funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana scheme. The prosecution’s case is based on an RTI‑initiated investigation that identified the applicant and several officials as having illegally allocated housing benefits and signed disbursement papers. The applicant argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR, that his role was limited to recommending beneficiaries, and that other co‑accused had been granted bail. The State contended that the applicant, being in a position of authority, actively participated in the fraud and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court held that the evidence indicated the applicant’s complicity, that the seriousness of the offence and the pending financial recovery warranted interrogation, and therefore denied anticipatory bail. The application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the Rural Housing Engineer accused of fraud under the IPC in view of the seriousness of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged limited role differentiates him from co‑accused who have been granted bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
- Right to Information Act, 2005
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fraud
- Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
- misappropriation of public funds
- IPC sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34
- custodial interrogation
- public office abuse
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:35423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 787 OF 2025
Sachin Prakash Bhadre
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Another
Mr. V. S. Dhotare, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 11th August, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The present applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with First
Information Report No. 61/2025 dated 05/04/2025 registered with
Kondalwadi Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable
under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
2. It's the case of the prosecution that the present proceedings arise
out of a complaint filed by RTI Activist-Shaikh Maksud Shaikh Ahmed
Lohgaonkar on 06/12/2020 against 11 beneficiaries including present
applicant who allegedly fraudulently availed benefits under the " Pradhan
Mantri Awas Yojana" (PMAY) scheme for house allocation to citizens in
Kautha, Taluka-Biloli, District Nanded. Upon information being obtained
1 of 5
about the fraud through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the
complainant requested a formal investigation and called for the
suspension of the involved officers. The Investigating Officer submitted
his official report dated 29/03/2023 which revealed 12 beneficiaries who
already owned concrete houses were illegally listed as homeless
(Beghar) and were improperly allocated Rs.1,20,000 each, amounting to
total fraud of Rs. 14,40,000 .
3. The report identified the Gram Sevak, Sarpanch, present applicant-
Rural Housing Engineer, Assistant Accountant, the then Block
Development Officer (BDO) as responsible for the said fraud,
recommending that the misappropriated amount be recovered from
them. However, as no departmental inquiry was initiated and no funds
were recovered, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class (JMFC) and Consequently, on 02/04/2025 directions were issued
for registration of FIR against 20 individuals, comprising the 12 ineligible
beneficiaries of the Gharkul scheme and the officers responsible for the
said fraud.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits there is delay in lodging
the First Information Report. There is no specific role attributed to the
present applicant and the applicant is only responsible for recommending
2 of 5
the name of genuine beneficiaries, so also other co-accused in ABA No.
673/2025 and 685/2025 have been granted pre-arrest bail by the co-
ordinating bench of this Hon’ble Court by Order dated 24/04/2025. The
learned counsel drew the attention of the court to an order dated 8th
May, 2025 to show that the present applicant was granted ad-interim
protection by the co-ordinating bench of this Hon’ble High Court. He
further contends that the offence is of 2020 and the investigation is at its
final stage. He further states custodial interrogation of the Present
applicant is not necessary and the applicant is ready to abide by all the
necessary conditions of investigation. Finally, he argues that the
applicant has no criminal antecedents.
5. The learned APP opposes grant of any relief in favour of present
application. The offense is serious in nature as the present applicant in
position of authority, has aided along with other co-accused persons in
defrauded the government. It's contended that upon bare perusal of FIR
the offence is made out as there is specific role attributed to the present
applicant. In this view the custodial interrogation of the applicant
becomes necessary.
6. Prima facie perusal of record indicates that present applicant being
Rural Housing Engineer under Zilla Parishad, Nanded was in position of
3 of 5
Authority and trust. The applicants and the other co-accused persons
name surfaced on in the inquiry report dated 29/03/2023 which shows
that an on-site visit and inquiry was conducted in which the present
applicant along with other co-accused persons are held responsible for
misappropriation and siphoning public money with malafide intentions. It
is further stated therein that the amount misappropriated should be
recovered and deposited into the government account. Upon going
through the inquiry report, the learned JMFC vide. Order dated
02/04/2025 directed the concerned authorities to register an offence
against all the accused persons which includes the present applicant.
7. Further perusal indicates that the present applicant and co-accused
persons in collision with beneficiaries, intentionally, from the beginning
defrauded the government, misappropriating taxpayers monies from
public exchequer, so also order dated 30/04/2025 passed by the learned
court below shows that the present applicant signed various
disbursement papers in his official capacity as a field officer, making him
responsible for verifying the construction stages of the subject houses.
8. In so far as the applicant seeking bail on grounds of parity is
concerned, the role and complicity of the present applicant differs from
that of the other co-accused persons who have been granted pre-arrest
4 of 5
bail by the coordinating bench of this Hon’ble Court. Thus, there is more
than enough evidence on the record to indicate that the present
applicant is involved in the misappropriation of public funds. Merely
because no specific role is being attributed to the present application at
this stage, this by itself cannot become a ground for allowing the
applicant.
9. It is a settled position of law that grant of pre-arrest bail must
strike a balance between individual liberty and the need for investigation.
In the case in hand the whole complicity of the present applicant in
commission of the said offence is yet to be ascertained and considering
the fact that financial recovery is pending, the chargesheet is not filed
and in this view the custodial interrogation of the applicant becomes
absolutely necessary to aid the further investigation.
10. Having regards to the above discussion, the applicant stands
dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
5 of 5
Checking your session…