THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusCHANDRAKANT HARI BADHE

                                -1-
                                                        acb24.20.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     30 APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 24 OF 2020
           WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1001 OF 2023
                         IN ACB/24/2020

The State of Maharashtra                         ….Applicant

VERSUS

Chandrakant Hari Badhe                           …..Respondent

Mr A. R. Kale, APP for the Applicant/State.
Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Respondent.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.        This is an application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail

granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by order dated

29.11.2019 in Criminal Bail Application No. 853/2019 in connection

with Crime No. 371/2012 registered with Sangwi police station for

the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code.



2.      At the outset, Respondent apprehended arrest in connection

with aforestated crime wherein it was alleged that being the

Chairman of the society, along with the other Directors, he mis-
                                  -2-
                                                          acb24.20.odt

appropriated huge funds more particularly, funds from branch at

Sangwi.



3.    Earlier, he moved application before the Sessions Court for

grant of pre-arrest bail which came to be rejected. His application

before this Court was also unsuccessful as this Court in Criminal

Application No. 4182/2013 by recording reasons rejected the

application on 12.09.2013. It is thereafter another application was

moved before the Sessions Court in the year 2019.             Before the

Sessions   Court,   prosecution   raised   objection   with   regard   to

jurisdiction so also maintainability of the application in view of the

fact that High Court has rejected the previous bail application. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the said

objections and hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order.



4.    Learned APP at the outset submits that it was not open for the

Sessions Court to again entertain the application for pre-arrest bail

once it was rejected on merit by the High Court by order dated

12.09.2013. In order to support his submission, he drew attention of

the Court to the observations made by this Court against the

Respondent.   According to him, the Respondent, after withdrawing
                                 -3-
                                                         acb24.20.odt

the application filed before Court at Pune, moved application before

the Court at Jalgaon and that fact itself creates doubt about the

manner in which the order in question came to be passed. In order

to support his submission, he placed reliance on the allegations in

the First Information Report and the observations made by this

Court in order dated 12.09.2013.        According to him, since the

Respondent has not cooperated in the investigation and for the

purpose of recovery his custodial interrogation is necessary.



5.    Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the application.

He drew attention of the Court to the observations made by the

Sessions Court in the impugned order. According to him, the said

Court has rightly entertained the application having regard to the

change in circumstances which is in the form of an enquiry being

conducted under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act.   According to him, the said enquiry came to be

conducted after order passed by the High Court. He drew attention

of the Court to the observations wherein there is mention about their

being no mis-appropriation and cash transactions of the concerned

branch were accounted for.     As far as grievance made by learned

Prosecutor about jurisdiction, he drew attention of the Court to the
                                  -4-
                                                            acb24.20.odt

observations made by Sessions Court in paragraph Nos. 11 and 13 of

the order.



6.    There is no dispute about the fact that offence in connection

with crime No. 371/2012 came to be registered with Sangwi Police

Station, District Pune, and application seeking pre-arrest bail came

to be filed before the Sessions Court, which came to be rejected and

consequently, Criminal Application No. 4182/2013 filed before this

Court was also rejected by order dated 12.09.2013. Needless to say

that unless there is change in the circumstances, it was not open for

the Sessions Court to entertain any application filed by the

Applicant/Respondent herein.        It is pertinent to note that the

application came to be filed before the Sessions Court after six years

of rejection of application by this Court. It is not in dispute that after

rejection of bail by this Court, enquiry was directed under Section 88

of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The Enquiry Officer

has considered the objection of the Special Auditor and has opined

that cash amount or other expenses which were allegedly said to have

caused financial loss do not hold water. It is further opined by the

Enquiry Officer that cash transactions were accounted for. Further,

there is no dispute about the fact that the enquiry report has not
                                    -5-
                                                              acb24.20.odt

been taken exception to till date and it has attained finality. If such

material change in circumstances has taken place, it was not open

for the Sessions Court to ignore the same.            This Court finds the

circumstances taken into consideration by the Sessions Court for

entertaining the application to be fully justified.



7.    Insofar as issue with regard to jurisdiction is concerned,

paragraph No. 11 of the said order is self-explanatory. For the sake

of convenience, the said paragraph is reproduced as under :-

      “11. The     State   raised   preliminary   objection    as   to
      Jurisdiction of this Court to try and entertain of this
      application. The learned DGP argued that as the offence
      was registered at Sangavi Police Station, Pune, this Court
      did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application and
      on that count alone, the application was liable to be
      dismissed and interim relief vacated forthwith.


            As stated earlier, the investigation of presence
      offence as well as connected C.R. No.90/2010 registered
      with Varangaon Police Station, Tal Bhuswal, Dist. Jalgaon,
      were ordered to be entrusted to one and same Investigating
      Officer as per directions in Cri.W.P. 1072/2012. It appears
      that accordingly the investigation was handed over to and
      officer from Jalgaon working under the controls of State,
      CID. This is not in dispute. The Applicant had thereafter
                                -6-
                                                           acb24.20.odt

withdrawn Cri.Bail Appln. 3787/2012 filed in the Sessions
Court at Pune, in connection with the present offence and
had preferred Cri. Bail Appl. No. 221/2013 in the Sessions
Court at Jalgaon i.e. present Court. In that application,
initially   interim      protection    was    granted,    but   the
application was finally dismissed on 22-07-2013.                The
Applicant unsuccessfully tried to secure bail, in Cri. Bail
Application No. 4182/2013 even at the Hon’ble High
Court. This is also undisputed. It therefore shows that
upon transfer of investigation to the investigating officer at
Jalgaon,     this     Court   had     entertain   bail   application
concerning Cr.No. 371/2012 though it was registered at
Sangvi Police Station, Pune. It does not appear from the
initial orders that jurisdiction of this Court to entertain
such application was ever challenged. Rather it appears
that the application was considered on merits and was
dismissed on its own merits and not on the point of
jurisdiction.       It is also seen that thereafter anticipatory
bail application No. 4182/2013 was entertained by the
Aurangabad Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and not the
Principal Bench, which ordinarily exercises jurisdiction
over Pune Court.         Thus, it seems that the investigation
being entrusted to an Officer at Jalgaon and it being
conducted also in connection with Cr. No. 90/2010, the
Court having jurisdiction at Jalgaon and consequentially
the superior Court exercising jurisdiction over Jalgaon
District    entertain     application/petition    concerning    the
                                -7-
                                                        acb24.20.odt

     same.    I, therefore, do not find any substance in the
     objection so raised.



8.   As far as consideration of application in merit is concerned,

observations made in paragraph No. 12 of the order take into

account all relevant facts which have occurred post rejection of bail

application by this Court. Apart from this, it would be relevant to

take note of observations made by Sessions Court in paragraph Nos.

14 and 15 of the order which read thus :-

     “14. As far as the pendency of similar such offences is
     concerned, it was reported by the Applicant that Cr. No.
     123/2013 registered at Varangaon Police Station appears
     to have been inadvertently mentioned twice in the reply
     and it ought to have been Cr.No. 125/2013.          Cr.No.
     125/2013 was registered at Varangaon Police Station
     under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. it appears that upon
     investigation the police filed final report which was
     numbered as RCC No. 433/2013 in which ‘B’ Summary
     was filed by the police. The learned Magistrate Court No.
     1, Bhusawal, in its order recorded the fact that the
     complainant therein was himself indebted to the Society
     and had defaulted the loan repayment. Depsite issuance
     of repeated notices, he did not appear before the Court.
     Therefore, the learned JMFC upon considering the
     material on record pleased to accept ‘B’ Summary report
     and discharge the accused therein, which included the
                             -8-
                                                     acb24.20.odt

Applicant who was arrayed as accused no. 2.          Offence
bearing Cr. No. 1/2012 and 2/12 at Palghar Police Station
were also registered in pursuance to directions u/sec.
156(3) of Cr.P.C. the amounts concerning the complainant
therein namely Arun Sindekar and Kunda Sindekar was
seized from the Palghar Branch of the Society and
produced before the Court at Palghar.        Thus, to that
extend the amount has been secured.          As far as Cr.
No.90/2010 registered at Varangaon Police Station is
concerned, the Applicant has been granted protection by
the Ho’ble High Court in Cri. Appl. No. 4567/2010 states
that it shall remain enforce till final report and that the
undertaking referred in para 5 of the order dated 04-11-
2010 shall also continue to operate. The undertaking was
to an effect that the Applicants shall not alternate their
properties to third party.   Thus, it seems that even the
course of action form recovery of amount if any in
pursuance of MPID Act has been protected.


15.   The Prosecution has opposed enlargement on bail,
on further count that the State intends to appoint a
Chartered Accountant to conduct forensic Audit. This is
certainly a welcome sign as it will help to clear the maze of
allegedly cyclical and fraudulent monetary transactions.
But at the same time, it cannot be denied that this step is
bit belated and for that personal liberty of the Applicant
cannot be jeoparadized.      Admittedly, the Prosecution is
handy with the documentary evidence and the Forensic
                                    -9-
                                                             acb24.20.odt

         Auditor so appointed would rather require the documents
         to establish money tray instead of the office bearers of the
         society in person. Hence this count also does not appeal.



9.       Apart from the fact that the Sessions Court has taken into

consideration all the relevant facts which were required to be

appreciated for the purpose of grant of pre-arrest bail, it is pertinent

to note that the said order came to be passed on 29.11.2019.

Charge-sheet came to be filed on 08.04.2022. This Court, in the year

2026, does not find it appropriate to cause interference in the said

order.      Consequently, application stands dismissed.            Pending

application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.



                                                    ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb