DATTATRAY UMAKANT LAKHADIVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:26488


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 814 OF 2024
                              Dattatray Umakant Lakhadive
                                         Versus
                          The State Of Maharashtra And Another

               WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 872 OF 2024
                                Namdeo Ramrao Gaddime
                                         Versus
                          The State Of Maharashtra And Another

                     WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2046 OF 2024
                      AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2083/2024
                                            ...
      Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. D. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for
      Applicant in ABA No. 814/2024
      Mr. A. N. Irpatigire, Advocate for Applicant in ABA No. 872/2024
      Mr. R. S. Wani, APP for Respondent – State
      Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. P. P. More Advocate for informant

                                  CORAM                  : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                  RESERVED ON            : 29th JUNE, 2026
                                  PRONOUNCED ON          : 7th JULY, 2026.

      PER COURT :-

      1.          At the outset, Mr. P. P. More, learned counsel, seeks permission to

      assist APP on behalf of informant.


      2.          Learned counsels for other side records no objection for the same.


      3.          In view of the above, Criminal Application Nos. 2083/2024 and

      2046/2024 are allowed. Mr. More, learned counsel, is permitted to assist APP.


      4.          By consent of both sides, these applications for pre-arrest bail are

                                             1
heard and decided finally together.


5.           The Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with First

Information Report No. 0173/2024, registered on 15.03.2024, at Shivaji Nagar

Police Station, District Latur. The complaint was lodged by Mr. Madhav

Baburao Ankulge, the Executive Director of Shri Omsiddhi Vinayak Multistate

Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Latur. Based on his complaint, the police

registered a crime under Sections 420, 406, 408, 467, 468, and 471, read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.


6.           According to the informant, after assuming charge, he received

multiple grievances from public depositors regarding unauthorized cash

withdrawals from their accounts. In view of these serious allegations, the

cooperative society appointed external auditors to conduct a special audit of

the branch records. This special audit, including an internal audit conducted by

witness Somnath Vaijinath Murge, discovered a massive, deep-rooted fraud and

illegal money transactions occurring in the bank from 01/04/2019 to

30/04/2023. The audit report revealed that the branch officials and

employees, while working at the Latur branch, acted in collusion and

deliberately abused their official positions to carry out large-scale financial

irregularities, thereby causing a severe financial loss to both the cooperative

society and its public depositors.


7.           It is specifically alleged that the original accused, the then Branch


                                        2
Manager Namdeo Ramrao Gaddime, along with the co-accused Accountant

Dattatray Umakant Lakhadive, jointly manipulated the society's computerized

accounting software. They acted without any authorization from the depositors

or the Board of Directors and misused their administrative access to illegally

withdraw money from depositors’ accounts. Instead of following standard

banking protocols, the accused diverted funds internally by making false

electronic entries in the software system. They deliberately executed these

transactions without creating paper vouchers, generating cash receipts, or

obtaining the signatures of the actual account holders, creating false software

trails to conceal the illegal extractions. According to informant the audit report

outlines the exact modus operandi used by the accused to misappropriate a

cumulative sum of approximately ₹2,44,89,580/-. First, they sanctioned

fraudulent loans totaling ₹1,40,70,729/- against ten different Fixed Deposit

(FD) accounts belonging to different account holders, electronically transferred

this loan money into corresponding savings accounts, and immediately

withdrew the full amount in cash. Second, they tampered with the banking

software to bypass the security protocol that requires physical production of

original deposit receipts, allowing them to directly withdraw ₹81,53,020/-

from eight individual savings accounts. Finally, it is alleged that they altered

seventeen other accounts to add fake, inflated interest entries totaling

₹22,45,841/-, which they subsequently pocketed through unauthorized cash

withdrawals. On the basis of these attribution, offence cause to be registered



                                        3
against them.


8.           The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant Lakhadive

submits that the present crime registered against them is completely false,

vague, and manufactured purely to implicate him, for the reason that he

refused to sell property to the chairman of society. This is argued to be evident

from the fatal and unexplained delay of nearly six months between the final

audit report dated 09/10/2023 and the actual registration of the FIR on

15.03.2024, proving that the alleged misappropriations were cooked up over

time.


9.           The applicants contend that this entire criminal case is driven by

deep personal malice on the part of the society's Chairman, Mr. Shailesh

Mallikarjun Utage, who is actively targeting Co-Accused Dattatray Lakhadive

simply because he refused to give in to illicit pressure to sell a highly valuable,

prime piece of land near the Latur Municipal Corporation limits. It is further

argued that the applicant had already officially exposed the Chairman's

systemic misconduct by registering multiple Non-Cognizable Reports (NCRs)

against him with the police. In addition, while the informant claims to hold the

position of Managing Director since June 2021, no actual depositor or

aggrieved   party   has    come    forward    to   substantiate   any   claim   of

misappropriation to date. Learned Counsel also drew attention to point (c) of

the Statutory Audit Report for the financial year 2019-2020, wherein an



                                         4
independent chartered accountant explicitly certified that for all shares allotted

by the bank, cash was actually received, and the financial books were correct

and regular at that material time. According to him the appointment of

unqualified auditor and infact clerk for conducting audit shows mala fides on

the part of chairman. He also drew attention of this court to documents placed

on record to argue that all concerned deposits are infact of chairman himself

and they are shown in the name of servants, employees etc. A reference is also

made to the WhatsApp chat between Lakhadive and Chairman to argue that

the transaction of deposit and withdrawal are done at the instance of

chairman. He also raised objection about the manner in which supplementary

statements of depositors are recorded after 6 months. It is also argued that

Vehicle purchased by the Chairman is shown to have been obtained in name of

Lakhadive and for its contract with sugar factory of chairman false signatures

of this applicant are made on documents. It is further argued that the

despositors who make grievance are employees/close aids of chairman and in

fact this is an attempt by him to convert black money.


10.          The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants raises a specific plea

of alibi concerning the timing of the alleged transactions. It is submitted that

the unauthorized withdrawal of ₹9,00,000/- from the account of witness

Ravindra Khandagale occurred on 02.02.2023, and the fraudulent loan of

₹4,50,000/- against the Fixed Deposit account of witness Mr. Mhetre was

processed on 24.06.2022. The applicants forcefully contend that during these


                                        5
material periods, they held neither the post of Bank Manager nor Accountant,

and had no administrative connection with the branch or the transactions in

question. Consequently, it is argued that the prosecution's allegations are

omnibus, vague, and devoid of specific overt acts linking the applicants to the

crime. Maintaining that this entire matter is a private property dispute, the

applicants submit that custodial interrogation is unwarranted, placing strong

reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.

State NCT of Delhi, (2020) 15 SCC 634 and Siddharth v. State of U.P. & Anr. ,

(2022) 1 SCC 676.


11.          Learned Counsel for the Applicant Gaddime adopted relevant

submissions made by Learned Senior Counsel and in addition thereto brought

to notice on record which according to him shows false implication of applicant

in this crime. According to him applicant attended police station            for

substantial period and co-operated in interrogation and hence interim relief be

confirmed.


12.          The learned APP and Learned counsels for informant opposes the

grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that the evidence clearly shows a direct,

calculated role of the accused in a massive, systemic bank fraud. The primary

audit report dated 15.09.2023 for the period 01/04/2019 to 30/04/2023

proves that the Branch Manager, Namdeo Gaddime, and the Accountant,

Dattray Lakhadive, actively cheated depositors by executing this fraud,



                                       6
deliberately breaking internal rules and skipping the mandatory requirement of

taking the account holders’ official signatures. In addition, the accused used

fake entries in the banking software and secretly used unauthorized manager

login IDs to steal ₹1,40,70,729/- from regular savings accounts and another

₹81,53,020/- from fixed deposits. They also caused extra financial loss to the

bank by tampering with the computer system to pay illegal, double-interest

amounts to 58 selected accounts.


13.         The learned APP further submits that this deep-rooted defalcation

is corroborated by the subsequent Audit Report dated 25/09/2023 and the

official Customer Ledger from the credit society, demonstrating that the

accused illegally disbursed double interest totaling ₹22,69,983/- across 17

select accounts. This insider manipulation included interest directly credited

and paid into the account of depositor Yerte Sanjay Chandrashekhar, which

directly culminated in a physical cash shortage of ₹8,55,339/- at the Latur

Branch. He further points out that the gravity of this insider fraud is

heightened by the audit report dated 04/09/2023 issued by Shinde Chavan

Gandhi and Company, Chartered Accountants, which highlights severe

irregularities in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) accounts of depositor

Satpute Ghanshyam Tulshiram. Out of a total deposit of ₹22,28,020/- cash

withdrawal vouchers worth ₹12,28,020/- were completely unsigned by the

account holder a fact directly corroborated by the statement of the depositor

himself, who categorically denies ever withdrawing the money and asserts that


                                      7
he still holds the original physical FD receipts.


14.          Additionally, according to him the Production Punchnama reveals

a wider, systemic pattern of fraud across multiple accounts, establishing that

while the society accepted lakhs of rupees from depositors such as Ghanshyam

Tulshiram Satpute and Dattatraya Babruvan Kumbhar, the original Fixed

Deposit receipts completely lack the required signatures of the society's

accountant and branch manager. Because these mandatory signatures are

completely missing, these documents violate standard banking rules. This

clearly shows that the receipts are unauthorized, fake, and were created

specifically to commit the fraud. Similarly, various cash payment vouchers

show that a total of ₹22,00,000/- was paid out in cash from the savings

accounts of Kalyani Vishal Shivankar and Shri Sawant Umakant Mayureshwar.

However, these records show a clear pattern of fraud. They completely lack the

required approval signatures from the ledger clerk and management officials,

and they don’t have the account holders' signatures on the main receipt.


15.          The learned APP further points out that independent witnesses

statements completely falsify the applicants’ claims. Shivaji Tulshiram

Gaikwad, in his statement before the Shivaji Nagar Police, confirmed receiving

and returning a small ₹5,00,000/- cash to bank transaction initiated by the

credit society's manager and cashier in 2020, but categorically denied any

knowledge of the alleged ₹80,00,000/- high-interest loan transaction with



                                         8
Chairman Mr. Utage. Furthermore, the statement of the Recovery Officer,

Santosh Gyanoba Sulkekar, explicitly records that all loan recovery cash

collected from the field was handed over directly to Manager Namdev

Gaddime and Cashier Dattatray Lakhadive, thereby shifting the physical

custody of the funds squarely onto the applicants. He argues that since the

bank statements of the accused reveal substantial, unexplained financial

transactions within their respective accounts at the credit society specifically

showing total credit and debit amounts of ₹1,76,86,355/- in the primary

account of Accused No. 1, Dattatray Umakant Lakhadive (Account No.

3000356), and ₹61,20,693/- in the secondary account of Accused No. 2,

Namdev Ramrao Gaddime (Account No. 3001226) the police urgently require

their custody for custodial interrogation to effectively trace the complex money

trail and recover the misappropriated public deposits. The prosecution places

reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik

Madhukar Surve vs. Vitthal Damuji Meher (Criminal Appeal no. 3573/2024),

Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, 2013 (7) SCC 466, Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun

Kumar C.K. 2022 (17) SCC 391, and State Represented by CBI vs. Anil Sharma ,

AIR Online 1997 SC 797.


16.         Having considered the rival submissions and evaluated the

material on record, this Court finds that the nature and gravity of the offense

disentitle the applicants to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The

special audit collected paper and digital evidence that directly links the


                                       9
computer fraud to the unique software user IDs belonging to the applicants

'GNR' assigned to Gaddime Namdev Ramrao and 'LDU' assigned to Lakhadive

Dattatraya Umakant. Because these login IDs were under their exclusive

domain and custody, it prima facie proves they were personally involved in

changing the banking data to execute the fraud. The exclusive use and

authority over the ID's excludes all others from the transaction in question and

sole repsonsibility thereof rests upon the Applicants. Moreover, there is no

dispute about the fact that they were the persons who were responsible for

doing the needful in respect of the payments of fixed deposits and transfer of

amounts into account of depositor. Further there is evidence to show that fixed

deposits are liquidated without signature of depositors and hence, prima facie

offence is committed. Apart from this, the qualification of auditor may not be

relevant at this stage and what is required to see as to the revelation made

during the special audit. Thus, there remains no reason to discard the findings

of audit being supported by documentary evidence.


17.         The defensive plea that this case is a malicious byproduct of an

internal property dispute with the Chairman, or that certain minor transactions

occurred outside their tenures, cannot dilute the harsh reality of the electronic

ledger trails and the overwhelming statements of independent witnesses like

the Recovery Officer and depositors. These records demonstrate a deep-seated

insider fraud resulting in a large-scale illegal diversion and defalcation of

institutional funds. Furthermore, the total absence of mandatory customer


                                       10
signatures on substantial cash withdrawal vouchers, coupled with massive,

unexplained credit-debit velocities running through the personal accounts of

the applicants, underscores a strong prima facie case of criminal breach of

trust, forgery, and falsification of accounts.


18.          As far as Lakhadive is concerned, his Bank statement shows

entries which are on the face of it disproportionate to his income as an

employee of bank. Though he denies the obtainment of the vehicle loan and its

hire agreement by sugar factory, apart from aggrement in that regard the rent

amount went into the bank account of this applicant. Thus at this stage it is not

open for the court to discard the said evidence. In so far as his grievance about

being pressurised to sell land is concerned, even accepting it to be correct,

there is prima facie documentary evidence collected during investigation to

show this applicant involment in the transactions which led to withdrawal of

amounts. Thus it cannot be said that the allegations against applicant are

baseless. Similarly there is evidence collected during investigation to show that

the depositors who made grievance were in a position to deposit amounts in

bank. Even though the        Investigating Officer has failed to carry out the

investigation on the basis of WhatsApp messages exchanged between

Chairman and applicants, it does not become a sole ground to grant pre-arrest

bail to the applicants.


19.          In so far as applicant Namdeo Gaddime is concerned there was no



                                         11
reason for his false implications as the material on record supports

allegations/attributions against him.


20.         Economic offenses involving the systematic theft and diversion of

public deposits from cooperative credit societies form a distinct class of crime.

These insider frauds directly destabilize the local financial system and destroy

public trust in cooperative banking. In complex white-collar crimes where the

digital money trail is intentionally hidden and siphoned cash is yet to be

recovered, the protective umbrella of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted. As

established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, custodial interrogation is a much

more effective investigative tool than questioning an accused who is protected

by anticipatory bail. The reliance placed by the applicants on the judgments of

State of Haryana v. State NCT of Delhi, (2020) 15 SCC 634 and Siddharth v.

State of U.P. & Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 676 is misplaced, as those principles apply

strictly to routine procedural arrests and cannot be extended to deep-rooted

financial scams.


21.         Consequently, to unearth the full scope of the software tampering,

trace the final destination of the misappropriated funds, and recover the public

money, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is absolutely necessary.

Merely because their liberty is protected for substantial period, requirement of

custodial interogattion cannot be ignored. Since the applicants have failed to

show any exceptional circumstances or clean hands required for pre-arrest



                                        12
protection, their pleas lack merit.


22.          However, as there is no invstigation carried out with regards to

allegations against chairman of society and as there is prima facie material on

record in the form of whatsapp chats and messages exchanged between him

and accused, investigation would be required therein. Hence, this order be sent

to Superintendent of Police, Latur for assigning investigation therein to a

responsible officer. This Court is conscious of the position of law about

directions to be issued to carryout investigation in an application for bail,

however, once some material is brought to the notice of the Court, which

requires proper investigation, Court cannot turn blind eye to the same. Hence,

appropriate investigation in accordance with law be conducted into the

allegations against chairman of society based upon the messages exchanged

between him and applicants.


23.          In view of above discussion, both applications deserve to be

dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed.


24.          The copy of this order be sent to Superintendent of Police, Latur

for compliance of directions issued in paragraph no. 22 above.


                                                         (R. M. JOSHI, J)

25.          After pronouncement of this order, learned Counsel for the

Applicant seeks continuation of interim relief for a period of four weeks. It is

their contention that since interim relief is in force for over a period of two

                                       13
years, same be continued to enable the applicants to challenge this order

before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court.


26.         Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposes the

same.


27.         Interim relief have been granted on 15.05.2024 & 29.05.2024

respectively and is continued thereafter from time to time. This Court,

therefore, finds no justification in rejecting the said request. As such, interim

relief granted on 15.05.2024 & 29.05.2024 to continue for a period of four

weeks from today.


                                                          (R. M. JOSHI, J)



Umesh




                                        14