PRAVIN MAYARAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38764
                                                                     BA-1287-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1287 OF 2026
                                       WITH
                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3300 OF 2026
                                  IN BA/1287/2026

            Pravin S/o. Mayaram Patil                          … Applicant
                                                                 (Accused No.3)
                      Versus

            The State of Maharashtra                           … Respondent

                                           …..
            Mr. B. R.Warma, Advocate for Applicant
            Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent – State.
            Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal
            Application No. 3300 of 2026
                                           …..

                                 CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                 DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026
            ORDER :-


            1.        The applicant seeks his release on regular bail under

            Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in

            connection with Crime No.53 of 2026 registered with Mehunbare

            Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under

            Sections 318(4), 318(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 341(1), 340(2),

            61(2), 229(2), 212, 198, 199, 233, 234, 228, 240, 256, 257, 201

            and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.


            2.        The applicant was arrested on 8th March, 2026. The

            charge-sheet was filed on 4th May, 2026. Certain reports are

            stated to be awaited and further investigation in relation to the

                                                                            1 of 9
                                                          BA-1287-26

claims submitted to other insurance companies are continuing.


3.        The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that Rajendra

Shalindar Jadhav had died on 23rd February, 2024 due to illness.

Despite his death, several insurance policies were allegedly

procured in his name. Thereafter, his death was projected as

having occurred in a motor vehicle accident on 19 th April, 2025.

For that purpose, a false narrative of an accident involving a

motorcycle and a Mahindra Thar vehicle was allegedly created.

Crime No.86 of 2025 was registered based on that narrative and

police,   hospital   records,   inquest,   post-mortem   and   other

documents were allegedly fabricated or caused to be fabricated by

the accused persons.


4.        On the strength of those documents, accidental death

claims were allegedly submitted to several insurance companies.

The claim submitted to Shriram General Insurance Company,

whose officer is the first informant in the present crime, was

detected during verification and no amount was disbursed by

that company. The prosecution, however, submits that other

insurance companies had already disbursed substantial amounts

aggregating to approximately ₹1.17 crore and that those

amounts were credited to the account of the widow, Aruna

Rajendra Jadhav.



                                                               2 of 9
                                                          BA-1287-26

5.      Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

applicant is not named in the original FIR. The investigation is

complete and the chargesheet has been filed. It was submitted

that no part of the insurance amount has been credited to the

applicant’s bank account and no witness states from personal

knowledge that the applicant received or shared the insurance

proceeds. According to the learned counsel, the description of the

applicant as the mastermind is merely the conclusion of the

investigating officer and is not supported by any direct evidence.


6.      It was further submitted that Crime No.86 of 2025

concerning the alleged accident had already been investigated

and a chargesheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle. The

legality of registration of the present FIR was questioned by

relying upon the principles governing registration of a second

FIR. It was argued that the prosecution could, at the highest,

have undertaken further investigation in the earlier crime. The

applicant has been in custody since 8th March, 2026, the relevant

documents and his mobile phone have been seized, and no useful

purpose would be served by his further detention.


7.      Learned APP opposed the application. It was submitted

that the present applicant is not implicated merely because his

name surfaced during interrogation. The charge-sheet attributes

to him the principal role in conceiving and facilitating the alleged

                                                               3 of 9
                                                         BA-1287-26

scheme. He is alleged to have acted in concert with the widow and

the other accused in suppressing the actual date and cause of

death of Rajendra Jadhav, arranging the false accident narrative,

facilitating preparation of false police and medical documents

and using those documents for lodging claims before several

insurance companies.


8.      Learned    APP   further   submitted    that   the   vehicle

projected in the alleged accident, the applicant’s mobile phone,

insurance records, bank-account material, claim documents and

other official records form part of the chargesheet. The

investigation has disclosed claims before several insurers and

further verification by those insurance companies is continuing.

Considering the magnitude and organised nature of the alleged

fraud and the involvement of police and medical personnel,

release of the applicant at this stage may prejudice further

investigation and expose the prosecution witnesses to influence.


9.      I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

FIR, supplementary statement, police report, the documents

referred to during the hearing and the chargesheet. At this stage,

the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous evaluation of

the evidence or record any finding which may affect the trial. At

the same time, the Court is required to consider the nature and

gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the applicant, the

                                                               4 of 9
                                                            BA-1287-26

material supporting that role, the severity of the punishment, the

possibility of interference with the investigation or witnesses, the

applicant’s antecedents and the period of custody.


10.     The mere fact that the applicant was not named in the

original FIR is not decisive. The FIR was lodged after the claim

submitted to Shriram General Insurance Company was subjected

to verification. The alleged involvement of the applicant and the

other accused was thereafter unearthed during investigation. In

a conspiracy which is alleged to have been executed through a

series of police, hospital, banking and insurance documents, the

role of every participant need not necessarily be known to the

first informant on the date of registration of the crime.


11.     The prosecution has described the applicant as the

principal architect of the scheme. That description, by itself,

would not be sufficient to refuse bail. However, the accusation

against him is not confined to that description. The material

collected during investigation prima facie attributes to him

participation in suppressing the actual death of Rajendra Jadhav,

arranging the subsequent story of accidental death, facilitating

the use of the Thar vehicle for creating that narrative, procuring

or facilitating the creation of the supporting documents and

using those documents for lodging claims before several

insurance companies.

                                                                 5 of 9
                                                         BA-1287-26

12.     The chargesheet also refers to insurance policies

allegedly procured after the actual death of Rajendra Jadhav,

claims submitted to different insurers, substantial credits in the

bank account of the widow and the subsequent movement of the

amounts so credited. The mobile phone and the vehicle connected

with the alleged transaction have also been seized. These

circumstances must be considered cumulatively. At this stage,

they provide prima facie support to the prosecution allegation

that the applicant’s role was wider than that of a person

incidentally associated with an individual document.


13.     It is true that the prosecution has not presently shown a

direct bank transfer of the insurance proceeds into the

applicant’s account. No conclusion regarding receipt or sharing of

the amount by him can therefore be recorded. However, the

absence of a direct transfer to the applicant does not, at the stage

of considering bail, by itself efface the allegation that he

conceived, facilitated or coordinated the fraudulent claims. A

conspiracy of the nature alleged is ordinarily required to be

inferred from the series of acts, the conduct of the participants

and the documentary and electronic circumstances.


14.     The contention founded upon the earlier Crime No.86 of

2025 also does not persuade this Court to grant bail. The earlier

crime proceeded on the footing that a genuine motor accident had

                                                               6 of 9
                                                            BA-1287-26

occurred. The present crime alleges that the earlier FIR,

investigation and chargesheet themselves formed part of a wider

conspiracy to fabricate an accidental death and cheat several

insurance companies. The record further indicates that a report

dated 1st August, 2026 has been submitted in the earlier

proceeding stating that the accident case was found to be false

and seeking appropriate action before the Magistrate.


15.       The legality and maintainability of the present FIR may

be examined in appropriate proceedings if challenged. It would

not be proper, while considering regular bail, to pronounce finally

upon that issue. Prima facie, however, the present crime

concerns a subsequently discovered and wider conspiracy

involving several accused, multiple allegedly fabricated official

records and claims before different insurers. The objection

concerning the second FIR does not, at this stage, displace the

substantive material collected against the applicant.


16.       The allegation is not of a simple or isolated act of

cheating. The prosecution alleges a premeditated scheme in

which the actual death of a person was concealed, a subsequent

accidental death was projected, official police and medical

records    were   brought   into   existence,   and   the   resulting

documents were used to obtain substantial amounts from

insurance companies. The alleged use of public officials and

                                                                 7 of 9
                                                               BA-1287-26

official records imparts greater gravity to the accusation, since

such acts, if ultimately established, undermine confidence both in

public documentation and in the insurance-claim process.


17.         Filing of the chargesheet is undoubtedly a relevant

circumstance. However, it does not create an indefeasible right to

bail. The chargesheet contains a large number of documents and

witnesses. Verification of the claims and the financial trail

involving other insurers is continuing and certain reports are

awaited. The witnesses include insurance officials, public

servants and persons connected with the creation and processing

of    the    disputed    records.   Having   regard    to    the   central

coordinating role attributed to the applicant, the apprehension of

his    influencing      witnesses   or   obstructing   the     remaining

investigation cannot, at this stage, be regarded as merely

speculative.


18.         The applicant has been in custody from 8 th March, 2026.

The period of custody, though relevant, is presently not so

prolonged as to outweigh the gravity of the accusation, the

magnitude of the alleged fraud, the punishment prescribed for

the principal offences and the prima facie material indicating the

applicant’s central role. The withdrawal of the applications filed

by the other accused also does not furnish any ground of parity

in favour of the applicant.

                                                                     8 of 9
                                                                  BA-1287-26

19.             On an overall consideration of the nature of the

accusation, the role specifically attributed to the applicant, the

documentary, financial and electronic material referred to in the

charge-sheet, the amount involved, the participation of several

persons including public officials, and the further investigation,

which is still in progress, this Court is not satisfied that the

applicant has made out a case for release on bail at this stage.


20.             It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

confined to the consideration of the present bail application and

are prima facie in nature. The trial Court shall decide the

proceedings on the evidence placed before it without being

influenced by these observations. Hence, the following order.


                                     ORDER

          (i)     Bail Application No.1287 of 2026 is rejected.

          (ii)    The application stands disposed of accordingly.

          (iii) In view of disposal of Bail Application itself, Criminal
                  Application No.3300 of 2026 is also disposed of.




                                            ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)



Tandale




                                                                       9 of 9