JEEVAN KARYAPPA BIJJANDA ALIAS B. K. JEEVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46650
                                                                        RB1BA1667-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           1 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1667 OF 2026

                          Jeevan Karyappa Bijjanda Alias B. K. Jeevan
                                            VERSUS
                                   The State Of Maharashtra
                                               ...
            Mr. Barlota Ambar S., Advocate for the Applicant
            Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for the Respondent-State


                                    CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                     Dated : 5th October, 2026
            PER COURT :-


            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for

            the Respondent State.


            2.       The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with the

            first information report bearing Crime No. 427 of 2024, registered with

            Jawahar Nagar Police Station, District Chh. Sambhajinagar (Rural) for

            the offences punishable under sections 316(2), 316(5), 318, 318(4),

            336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 45, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya

            Sanhita and under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act.

            The applicant came to be arrested in connection with the present

            offence on 22.12.2024. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has

            been filed. The prosecution alleges 9 accused persons to be involved in

            the present offence. Record indicates that out of 9 accused persons, 7

            accused have already been released on bail.


            3.       The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, who is


                                                                               1 of 5
                                                              RB1BA1667-26


serving as Sports Officer in the Department of Sport and Youth Services

at Aurangabad, alleges that since 2022, his department has availed

services of employees on contract basis from outsourcing agency M/s

Disha Facilities Pvt. Ltd.      for daily maintenance and management

works. It is alleged that the original accused no.1 was appointed a

Computer Operator and thereafter, in the year 2023, accused No.2,

who happens to be the wife of the present applicant, was appointed as

Accounts Clerk. Both of them were appointed through the outsourcing

agency on contract basis for the daily official work, which is pertaining

to clerical, accounts, administrative work etc. It is the case of the

prosecution that in all 19 other employees were also appointed on the

contract basis.


4.        It is alleged by the prosecution that during the tenure from

04.06.2024 to 07.12.2024, accused No.1 and accused no.2 had

fabricated the E-mail ID access of the Informant's office by forging

letter   of   Superior    and    thereby   transferred   an    amount   of

Rs.21,59,38,287/- in their accounts from the account of the department

and thereafter the said amount came to be transferred in the account

of different persons.    The applicant is alleged to have been one of the

said beneficiaries whose accounts have been used for making a transfer

of almost about Rs. 1,99,00,000/-.


5.        Investigation of the prosecution has led that the amount has

been received by the present applicant, which thereafter has been

utilized by him for purchase of several properties. As he was found to

                                                                     2 of 5
                                                             RB1BA1667-26


be beneficiary of the amount and also one of the accomplice of accused

nos. 1 and 2, he came to be arrested by the Investigating Agency.


6.       The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

applicant has been falsely implicated in the entire offence. He submits

that his wife was working in the department and there are allegations

that accused no.2, in connivance with accused no.1, have siphoned off

the monies of the department and thereafter transferred the same in

different accounts. His account was also misused and therefore, he

cannot be said to be party to the offence. He submits that apart from

merits, the entire allegations of the prosecution is that the applicant is

in receipt of Rs.1,99,00,000/- of the proceeds of crime, out of which,

by way of different forms and modes, almost Rs. 1,50,00,000/- have

been recovered by the prosecution form his bank accounts, gold

ornaments and movable and immovable properties.                Taking into

consideration that 7 accused persons have already been released on

bail and that the present applicant is lingering in custody since

22.12.2024, charge-sheet is filed and the investigation is complete, the

applicant deserves to be released on bail.


7.       Per contra, the learned APP argues that the role of the

applicant is pertinent on the face of the record which shows that he

has received the amount of Rs.1.99,00,000/- in his bank account.

Subsequent indulgence of the applicant in utilizing the said proceeds of

crime, in purchasing properties for himself and enjoying the illegal

funds in itself is sufficient to infer that the applicant is involved in the

                                                                      3 of 5
                                                           RB1BA1667-26


present offence. He also argues that the wife of the applicant was

working in the department and therefore, in connivance with her, the

accused have obtained this illegal proceeds of crime in his account and

thus, have used it for his personal consumption. He submits that the

release of Accused No. 2 on bail is not of much significance, as she was

enlarged on bail primarily on account of the fact that she is a woman.

He argues that the present applicant’s movable and immovable

properties are seized and from that, it cannot be said that the entire

recovery has taken place.     Even in another way, he argues that the

amount Rs. 50 lakhs is yet to be recovered from the applicant as the

entire work of the recovery is only to the tune of Rs.1,45,00,000/-. He

submits that this application be rejected and the trial be expedited.


8.       I have perused the entire charge-sheet with the assistance of

both the learned counsel and have also perused the orders passed by

this Court while granting bail to the other co-accused persons.


9.       It is not in dispute that the present applicant has received the

proceeds of crime in his account and prima facie, it appears that the

account of the present applicant was used in the present offence. The

investigation is completed and the record indicates that the properties

worth Rs.1,45,00,000/- has already been secured by the prosecution.

Though it is correct to say that the worth of the properties is tentative,

the fact remains that a substantial part of the proceeds of crime alleged

against the present applicant has been traced and seized by the

prosecution. Considering further that the applicant has been in custody

                                                                        4 of 5
                                                                     RB1BA1667-26


           since 22.12.2024 and that the investigation pertaining to the present

           applicant is complete, I do not find any reason why the custody of the

           present applicant should be continued. Hence, the following order:

                                            ORDER

           (i)     Bail Application No. 1667 of 2026 is allowed.

           (ii)    Applicant- Jeevan Karyappa Bijjanda Alias B. K. Jeevanshall be
                   released on bail in Crime No. 427 of 2024, registered with
                   Jawahar Nagar Police Station, District Chh. Sambhajinagar
                   (Rural) for the offences punishable under sections 316(2),
                   316(5), 318, 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 45,
                   3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 66(c) of
                   the Information Technology Act on executing P.R. Bond of
                   Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) with one or two solvent
                   sureties in the like amount.

           (iii)   The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and
                   shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.




                                                      (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                              5 of 5