ARVIND PANDURANG BAWAKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:32271


                                                                            BA-1242-2026
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1242 OF 2026

                       Arvind Pandurang Bawake                     … Applicant

                             Versus

                       The State of Maharashtra                    … Respondent

                                                  …..
                 Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. S. B. Gorde, Advocate for the
                 Applicant.

                 Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                 .....

                                           CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                           Reserved on       : 30.07.2026
                                           Pronounced on     : 31.07.2026

                 ORDER :-

                 1.    Applicant seeks grant of regular bail on account of his arrest in

                 Crime No.213 of 2026 registered at Shirdi Police Station, District

                 Ahilyanagar for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2),

                 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

                 and under Sections 39, 44 of the Maharashtra Money Lending

                 (Regulation) Act, 2014.


                 2.    Regular bail is urged on the ground that, applicant is falsely

                 involved and arrested on 31.03.2026. That, he merely happened to be

                 special power of attorney for executing a transaction of land. The
                                                          BA-1242-2026
                                  -2-

power of attorney was only confined to said sole transaction and for

no other purpose. That, he had no authority to transfer land or sell it

to any person. Learned senior counsel pointed out that, vide above

crime, allegations are levelled for commission of offence under

Sections 39 and 44 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)

Act, but applicant is admittedly not involved in any such business. As

regards to provisions of Sections 316(2), 318(2) and 318(4) are

concerned, it is submitted that the same are for cheating and

committing breach of trust, but applicant was never handed over

custody or domain over any property, nor he transferred it in any

such capacity so as to attract the rigors of above provisions. He

pointed out that, provisions of Money Lending Act are not at all

gravitated against him. That, there is no wrongful gain or wrongful

loss at his instance to any person including informant.



3.    Learned senior counsel submitted that, there are allegations of

transfer of Rupees Five Crore Fifty Two Lakh, but that transfer was

also through RTGS. Learned senior counsel took this Court through

the registered power of attorney by which applicant was authorized to

carry out transaction. He also pointed out that there is violation and

breach of Section 35 of BNSS for not issuing prior notice as required

by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central
                                                           BA-1242-2026
                                   -3-

Bureau of Investigation and another 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162. That,

he is not a beneficiary in any manner. There is no recovery or

discovery to be made at his instance. The documents by which he was

empowered are already seized and are part of investigation papers.

Investigation is complete as chargesheet is already filed on

27.05.2026 and therefore, as further custody is unwarranted, learned

senior counsel urges for grant of bail.



4.    Learned APP opposed on the ground that, applicant is named in

the FIR. That, he has acted in the capacity of special power of

attorney for carrying out the transaction. There are also allegations of

cheating, criminal breach of trust to the informant. That, as applicant

has played major role along with other accused, learned APP has

sought rejection of the bail application.



5.    Perused the FIR at the instance of Raosaheb Gondkar.

Allegations against present applicant in the FIR are that, present

applicant, in the capacity of special power of attorney on behalf of

accused nos. 1 and 4 i.e. Captain Kharat and his wife, executed the

sale deed dated 22.08.2023 of the land of informant in favour of

accused nos. 1 and 4 in lieu of the loan borrowed by the informant.

According to the informant, it was agreed between the parties that,
                                                          BA-1242-2026
                                  -4-

informant would repay the loan within one year, after which, it was

agreed to return the land to the informant. However, later on, in spite

of repayment of said loan amount, accused persons refused to return

the land.



6.    Thus, from above substance of the FIR, it is emerging that, only

role that could be attributed to the present applicant is that, he has

acted as a mere special power of attorney for the solitary transaction

of sale of land owned by informant and allegedly purchased by

accused nos. 1 and 4. Beyond this transaction, applicant does not

seem to have played any role. Thus, only allegations as against

present applicant are that he acted as special power of attorney.

There are no allegations that he is also beneficiary in any manner in

the alleged transaction between informant and accused nos.1 and 4.

One of the accused, who is wife of accused no.1, is already said to be

granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated

28.07.2026.



7.    Therefore, as there is no further recovery or discovery to be

made at his instance and considering the above limited role attributed

to the applicant, when investigation is over and alleged documents of

transaction already being laid hands on by the investigating
                                                           BA-1242-2026
                                     -5-

machinery, as no purpose would be served by further detention, and

there to be no immediate prospects of charge being framed or trial

commencing, relief as prayed deserved to be granted. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following order:

                                 ORDER

I.     The application is allowed.


II.    Applicant Arvind Pandurang Bawake be released on bail in
connection with Crime No.213 of 2026 registered at Shirdi Police
Station, District Ahilyanagar, on executing Personal Bond of
Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on the following
conditions :


[a]    The applicant shall not tamper prosecution evidence.


[b]    The applicant shall not leave the area of jurisdiction of the
concerned police station till conclusion of trial.


[c]    The applicant shall regularly attend each and every effective
date before the trial court.


III.   The Bail Application is accordingly disposed off.



                                            [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre