Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA GULABSINGH JAHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Pandit Bhika Jadhav and Pramod Pandit Jadhav, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (C.R. No. 436/2026) alleging offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, who had served as vice‑president and president of a trust from 2014 to 2025, alleged misappropriation of trust funds by the petitioners but lodged the complaint after an unexplained delay. The court noted the informant’s prior position and the delay, suggesting a possible false implication, and considered the liberty of the petitioners. After hearing, the court ordered that the petitioners be released on bail if arrested, subject to strict conditions, and issued notice to the respondents. The order also directed cooperation with the investigating agency and prohibited contact with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the delay in filing the complaint and possible false implication
- Whether the informant’s prior role in the trust affects the credibility of the allegations
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences under the IPC precludes anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 407, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- delay in complaint
- trust misappropriation
- Indian Penal Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
909-ABA-1832-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1832 OF 2026
1. Pandit Bhika Jadhav
2. Pramod Pandit Jadhav
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Mr. P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondents/State
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3906 OF 2026 IN ABA/1832/2026
Rajendra Gulabsingh Jahav
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. S. G. Laddha h/f Ms. S. A. Kothari and Mr. A. P. Lohade, Advocate for
Applicant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondents
CORAM :R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE :SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
P. C. :
1. At the outset, Mr. Laddha, learned Counsel, seeks leave of this
Court to assist APP on behalf of Informant.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicants records no objection for the
same.
3. In view of this, Mr. Laddha, learned Counsel, is permitted to
assist APP on behalf of Informant. In view of this, Criminal Application No.
3906/2026 for assist to APP stands disposed of.
4. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the documents
placed on record on the face of it indicates that the first informant and the
Page 1 of 3
909-ABA-1832-2026.odt
Applicants are at loggerhead. He drew attention of the Court to the order
passed by this Court on one of such proceedings referring to the conduct of
the informant. According to him, informant himself was vice-president as
well as president of the Trust for substantial period from 2014 to 2025, as
such, it does not stand in the mouth of the informant now to say any
misappropriation has been done. It is his submission that having regard to
these facts and considering the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging
of the report, this is a fit case to protect the liberty of the Applicants.
5. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the Informant opposed
grant of any relief to the Applicants. It is their contention that the
documents on record shows misappropriation of the funds of the Trust
having been done by the Applicants.
6. A specific query was made to the learned Counsel for the
Informant as to whether it is correct fact that the Informant was vice-
president and president of the Trust for the period from 2014 till September,
2025. On instructions, he answers the same in affirmation. Next question
was posed to him as to when it was came to knowledge of the Informant
about audit report and alleged discrepancy, he is unable to respond to said
query.
7. Prima facie this indicates that there is unexplained delay in
lodging of the report. Having regard to the observations made by this Court
Page 2 of 3
909-ABA-1832-2026.odt
in order dated 03.12.2024 in ABA No. 1954/2024, this Court has reason to
believe that this could be a case of false implication. As such, liberty of the
Applicants deserve to be protected till next date of hearing. Hence, the
order:
ORDER
(i) Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 28.10.2026.
Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of
Respondent.
(ii) Till next date, in the event of arrest of the Applicants in
connection with C.R. No. 436/2026 registered with
Chikalthana Police Station, District Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 406, 407, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, they shall be released on bail on
furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
Only) each with one surety in the like amount.
(iii) They shall attend the concerned police station as and when
required.
(iv) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(v) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(vi) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.
8. Learned APP to communicate this order to concerned police
station.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…