Bombay High Court
SHARAD GAURIHAR MUNDHEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the applicants, subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered bail applications filed by Sunil Ananda Kashid and Sharad Gaurihar Mundhekar, who were arrested in May 2024 for alleged loan fraud and misappropriation of Rs 13.09 crore in a cooperative society, offences punishable under several IPC sections and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. The prosecution argued that the crimes were serious and that the accused might tamper with evidence, while the defence contended that the investigation was complete, evidence had already been seized, and continued detention would violate their fundamental rights. The court noted that the audit report and seized documents reduced the risk of evidence tampering, that co‑accused were already on bail, and that prolonged pre‑trial detention was unjustified given the lengthy trial prospects. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant regular bail, imposing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each and stringent conditions to prevent interference with the trial. The interim application was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to accused in serious economic offences where the investigation is complete and evidence is already seized.
- Whether the risk of tampering with prosecution evidence justifies continued pre‑trial detention.
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention violates the accused's fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(b), 406, 408, 420, 465, 467, 471
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- economic offences
- cooperative society
- loan fraud
- misappropriation of deposits
- IPC
- Maharashtra Depositors Act
- pre‑trial detention
- fundamental rights
- evidence tampering
Judgment
920 CriBA No.1826.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1826 OF 2025
SUNIL ANANDA KASHID
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul Dhaigude a/w Ms. Sujata B.
Lohar and Mr. Tejas Kakade
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. Nitin B. Patil
...
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2267 OF 2025
SHARAD GAURIHAR MUNDHEKAR
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Tejpal S Ingale a/w Mr. Abhishek
Ingale
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. Nitin B. Patil
…
WITH
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3740 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1826 OF 2025
RAMESH SHIVAJI SALUNKHE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL
DEPOSITORS OF SHIVSHANKAR NAGARI S P LTD KARAD
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant (Intervenor) : Mr. Ravi Kadam a/w Ms.
Vedantikar Naik
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 10th April, 2026
920 CriBA No.1826.2025
-2-
ORDER :-
1. The applicants have approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 17.04.2025 bearing Crime
No. 585 of 2024 registered with Karad City Police Station, Dist.
Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420,
465, 467, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code alongwith Section
3, 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act,
1999.
2. The FIR was lodged by the Special Auditor for the Co-
operative Society. In 2022, aggrieved depositors of the
Shivshankar Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit filed a complaint
before the District Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society in
Satara to seek the refund of their respective deposit amounts from
the institution. Following an order issued by the District Deputy
Registrar, the informant conducted a comprehensive audit of the
Society covering the financial period from 01.04.2021 to
31.03.2023. During this audit, it was discovered that the applicants
alongside other co-accused, had sanctioned various loan proposals
without obtaining necessary surety documents or by utilizing
forged surety records. The investigation revealed instances where
loans were disbursed without any form of surety whatsoever. It
was further established that between 2011 and 2022, the
920 CriBA No.1826.2025
-3-
applicants and co-accused acted in connivance to disburse loan
amounts based on these false and fabricated documents, ultimately
resulting in the misappropriation of a total sum amounting to Rs.
13,09,96,722/-.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that
necessary documents were recovered after the arrest was effected.
The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed,
further incarceration of the applicant is not necessary. The arrest of
the applicants has been effected on 27.05.2024 and since then,
they are in jail. The co-accused in the crime have been enlarged on
either pre-arrest bail or regular bail. Hence, it is prayed that the
application be allowed.
4. The learned APP and the learned counsel for intervenor
have opposed the application and submitted that the crime is
serious in nature and there is sufficient material on record to
establish the complicity of the applicants. If the applicants are
enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the
prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the application be
rejected.
920 CriBA No.1826.2025
-4-
5. Considering the submissions of both sides and a perusal
of the record, the entire case is primarily based on the audit report
and documentary evidence covering the period from 2011 to 2022.
Since the relevant documents have already been seized by the
Special Auditor and the investigating agency, the possibility of the
accused tampering with the evidence is significantly diminished.
6. In connection with the same, the applicants were
arrested on 27.05.2024 and since then, they are in jail. Keeping
the accused in pre-trial detention indefinitely would amount to a
violation of fundamental rights, especially when they have
demonstrated deep roots in the community and have expressed a
willingness to abide by stringent conditions.
7. Moreover, the other co-accused in the crime are
enlarged either on pre-arrest bail or by regular bail. Considering
that the necessary documents are already collected during the
course of the investigation and that the other co-accused have also
been enlarged on bail, no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the applicant behind bars.
8. Nevertheless, the investigation is complete for all intent
and purpose and the charge-sheet is filed. Having regard to the
920 CriBA No.1826.2025
-5-
number of witnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine, it
is very unlikely that the trial can be commenced and concluded
within a reasonable period. As such, further detention of the
applicant as an under trial prisoner, in the circumstances of the
case, does not seem to be either warranted or justifiable.
9. I am, therefore, persuaded to exercise the discretion in
favour of the applicants. The apprehension expressed by the
learned APP about tampering with the prosecution evidence can be
adequately taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. Hence,
the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent
conditions. Hence, the following order: :-
ORDER
(I) Bail Applications are allowed.
(II) Applicants – Sunil Ananda Kashid and Sharad
Gaurihar Mundhekar be released on regular bail on
furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand
Only) each with one or two local solvent sureties in
the like amount, in Crime No. 585 of 2024 registered
with Karad City Police Station, Dist. Satara for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420,
465, 467, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code
alongwith Section 3, 4 of the Maharashtra Protection
of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, on the following
conditions :-
920 CriBA No.1826.2025
-6-
(a) The applicants shall attend each and every date of
the Trial Court unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicants shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card
to the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses
and phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) Breach of any of the conditions by the applicants
would entail the cancellation of the bail.
(iii) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(IV) Resultantly, pending interim application also stands
disposed of.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…