Bombay High Court
AJAY PRAMOD SHRIVASTAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The bail cancellation order dated 17 March 2026 is quashed and set aside, and the original bail order of 27 December 2017 stands confirmed.
Summary
The applicant, Ajay Pramod Shrivastav, challenged a lower court order dated 17 March 2026 that cancelled his bail on the ground of alleged violation of a bail condition concerning alienation of company property. The High Court examined whether the applicant had criminal intent in the transfer of twelve properties of the NDTA company, noting that the board resolutions authorized the transactions and the applicant abstained from voting. The court held that the bail condition required proof of criminal intent, which was not established in the bail cancellation order. It further observed that the corporate entity, not the individual, executed the transfers and that the lower court had misdirected itself by equating the company's actions with the applicant's intent. Consequently, the order cancelling bail was quashed and set aside, and the original bail order of 27 December 2017 was confirmed. All intervenor applications were disposed without prejudice to their separate civil or criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant violated the bail condition by participating in the alienation of NDTA's properties.
- Whether the lower court correctly inferred criminal intent on the part of the applicant.
- Whether the bail cancellation order should be set aside in the absence of proven criminal intent.
Subjects
- bail
- bail condition violation
- criminal intent
- corporate property alienation
- intervention
- cancellation of bail
- High Court
Judgment
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1039 OF 2026
Ajay Pramod Shrivastav .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2699 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1039 OF 2026
Maharashtra Samaj Seva Sangh, Nashik .. Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Ajay Pramod Shrivastav .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2605 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1039 OF 2026
Satish Philip Kalsekar Applicant /
.. Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Ajay Pramod Shrivastav .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Mr. Yash Fadtare, Mr. Ishan Paradkar, Mr.
Priyesh More, Ms. Indrayanee Pandit & Navaz Dordi, Advocates for
Applicant
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for State
Mr. Amol Shinde, Advocate for Original Complainant
Mr. Sangharsha Apte (Shakya) a/w Mr. Dinesh R. Sonawane & Mr.
Vilas Sonawale, Advocates for Applicant in IA 2605/26
Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Advocate for Applicant in IA 2699/26
1 of 8
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
R.K. Thoke, PSI, Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Palkar,
learned APP for State; Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for Original
Complainant, Mr. Shakya, learned Advocate for Applicant / Intervenor
in IA 2605/26 & Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for Applicant /
Intervenor in IA 2699/26.
2. Applicant seeks to challenge the order dated 17.03.2026 by
virtue of which the Application for cancellation of bail granted to the
Applicant vide order dated 27.12.2017 stands allowed by learned
Sessions Court on the ground that Applicant has violated an essential
bail condition as granted in the order passed by the Sessions Court.
The operative part of the order dated 27.12.2017 is reproduced below
for immediate reference:-
"1. Application is allowed.
2. Applicant Ajay Pramod Shrivastav be released on bail on his executing
P.R. bond of Rs.30,000/-with one or two sureties to make up the amount,
on the condition that he shall co-operate the investigating authority in
investigation, shall not tamper with the evidence, shall attend Sakarwada
police station as and when called by the IO till filing the charge sheet, shall
not misuse his position as a Director and newly constituted body, shall not
alienate any property of the N.D.T.A., shall not withdraw the cash amount
of the N.D.T.A. with criminal intent and attend all court dates.
3. Bail in lower court."
2 of 8
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
3. Mr. Shinde, Mr. Shakya and Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocates
appearing for the intervenors seek intervention. They would attempt
to vehemently oppose the present Application seeking to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2026.
4. Briefly stated, Mr. Joshi has persuaded me to peruse the
aforesaid order and would contend that the impugned order dated
17.03.2026 does not consider the issue of any intent being made
applicable on the part of Applicant and has in paragraph No. 5 of the
said order merely recorded the submissions on the ground that in view
of the alienation of the properties, the said condition stands violated.
He would submit that it is indeed true that after passing of the
aforesaid order, the Company namely NDTA has executed 12 specific
transactions of transfer of properties, the details of which are stated on
page No. 58 of the Application filed for cancellation of bail. He would
submit that these transactions are carried out by the Company
pursuant to specific separate Board Resolutions having been passed
and on following the due process of law. The copies of the said Board
Resolutions are also appended to the Application. He would submit
that it is recorded in the said Board Resolutions that the Applicant
would abstain from voting and participating insofar as the decision for
alienation of the property is concerned which stands recorded therein.
He would submit that in that view of the matter and the same having
3 of 8
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
been accordingly noted by the Board of Directors by passing the said
resolution as can be seen from page No. 69 of the Application, the
finding which has been returned by the learned Trial Court in
paragraph No. 6 is a prima facie incorrect and wrong finding. He
would submit that after the Board Resolution has been passed and the
Board of Directors having decided to transfer the properties of the
Company, the Applicant has in fact thereafter signed certain directory
resolutions which would amount to mere certification and cannot be
made equivalent to he having participated in taking any decision
making process for alienation of the property. He would submit that
before cancellation of bail, the Applicant has not even been heard and
no investigation has been done by the prosecution in this direction.
5. Per contra, Mr. Shinde appearing for original Complainant
would submit that one such Resolution dated 14.04.2023 regarding
alienation of the one property has been signed exclusively by the
Applicant. He has placed the same before me. On perusal of the
same, it is prima facie seen that the said resolution is merely directory
in nature pursuant to the consent of Board of Directors of having
resolved to authorize another director of the company to sign and
execute the lease deed, agreement and the other documents. Prima
facie perusal of the said Board Resolution cannot be equated with the
Applicant having taken any decision with regard to alienation of the
4 of 8
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
property. It is prima facie seen that the Applicant has played very safe
in ensuring that he does not compromise or unsettle the conditions for
bail because at the end of the said conditions, the words "criminal
intent" are specifically mentioned by the concerned Court while
granting bail.
6. Mr. Shinde has also persuaded me to consider the facts of the
case. Though he has argued very passionately facts which prima facie
may appeal to any person listening to him, but insofar as the present
Application is concerned, I need not detain myself by considering
them, lest it would probably affect not only the trial in the present
case but also the subsequent 3 FIRs which have been filed qua the
actions / omissions of the Applicant which are on a separate cause of
action pertaining to the role of Applicant in alienating the 12
properties of the Company. He would submit that the issue of Board
of Directors is also a misnomer in the present case since the family
members of the Applicant and his associates are the other directors.
He would also submit that the Registrar of Companies is not informed
about the actions which have taken and therefore there is dereliction
on the part of the said Company.
7. All those submissions can undoubtedly be pointed out either by
the intervenors or by the prosecution in the subsequent FIR
proceedings which are filed for separate cause of action. Insofar as
5 of 8
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
the issue of Applicant being involved to the extent of having any
criminal intent in alienating the properties rather the 12 properties
which are placed before me is concerned, the Board Resolutions are
clear and since the Company is a distinct legal entity and it has so
accordingly certified, I am not in a position to accept the submissions
made by Mr. Shinde and embark upon a fishing and roving inquiry in
the present Application which pertains to violation of bail condition.
8. Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for another intervenor has argued
and drawn my attention to page No. 58 and submit that he is in fact
concerned with one such transaction carried out by the Company
which is listed at Sr. No. 8 in the said Application. He would submit
that his client has a long standing substantiated lease deed with regard
to the said property and notwithstanding that lease deed, the said
property is now being sold by the concerned Company to a third party
on meager terms and returns by way of another lease deed and
agreement to sale qua the same property belonging to his client. If
that is the case, this is a purely civil transaction and issue and all
contentions of the said intervenor are expressly kept open to enable
him to approach the Civil Court for seeking appropriate injunctive
reliefs as may be available to him in accordance with law. The
intervention of the intervenor to the extent of this Court giving a
finding on the issue of criminal intent in the aforesaid facts and
6 of 8
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
circumstances does not arise and therefore the request made by Mr.
Tiwari stands rejected.
9. Mr. Shakya, learned Advocate for another intervenor would
submit that operative part of the order dated 27.12.2017 needs to be
considered on the basis of issue of criminal intent on the part of the
Applicant. Mr. Shakya may be right in his contention but that would
be a separate cause of action and only if he is able to show the extent
of criminal intent that may have crept in any of the transactions which
have been entered into by the Company, the Company being a distinct
legal person has categorically decided to offload the properties
concerned by passing appropriate resolution. The facet of involvement
of Applicant and to the extent of his criminal intent cannot be argued
merely across the bar. These are the issues of facts. I am informed
that the three intervenors before me and some other persons has filed
three separate FIRs pursuant to the aforementioned 12 transactions of
the alienation of the 12 properties of the Company. All contentions of
the parties who have filed the further FIRs are expressly kept open
without this Court opining anything on merits therein
10. Insofar as the issue of criminal intent is concerned, the learned
Sessions Court in paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 17.03.2026 has
completely misdirected himself and returned a wrong finding. Said
order cannot be sustained merely on the ground of the Company
7 of 8
32. APL 1039-26 + 2 IA.odt
having alienated the properties. Right for alienation of the properties
is in fact duly conferred on the Company by virtue of the impugned
order itself, therefore the order dated 17.03.2026 is unsustainable and
it is quashed and set aside. Resultantly the Application for
cancellation of bail dated 13.10.2025 is rejected. The original order
dated 27.12.2017 stands confirmed.
11. Needless to state that if any consequential action has been taken
by the learned Magistrate with regard to issuance of any non-bailable
warrant on the basis of the order dated 17.03.2026, same stands
cancelled.
12. All contentions of the intervenors are expressly kept open
without this Court giving any imprimatur on merits of the matter.
13. Criminal Application No. 1039 of 2026 is disposed of in the
above terms. Pending Interim Application Nos. 2699 of 2026 and
2605 of 2026 are also disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.28
19:50:03
+0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…