Bombay High Court
KANTILAL S/O BALASO HOLKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
On a prima facie assessment, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to link the directors directly to the alleged fraud and consequently granted bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered three bail applications filed by directors of Anand Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, who were alleged to have sanctioned large loans amounting to Rs. 27 crore to the principal accused and his companies. The prosecution alleged that the directors, by signing board resolutions, were complicit in the fraud, while the intervenors claimed joint and several liability. The court examined the statutory audit report and found no direct evidence that the applicants benefited from the loans or were involved in the alleged misappropriation. Relying on the lack of prima facie incriminating material against the directors, the court granted bail to all three applicants subject to strict conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and reserved the trial to determine the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the directors of the cooperative society are prima facie implicated in the alleged loan fraud and thus ineligible for bail.
- Whether the intervenors' allegations of joint conspiracy affect the grant of bail to the directors.
- Whether bail can be granted under the Criminal Procedure Code considering the nature of the offence and risk of tampering with evidence.
Subjects
- bail
- loan fraud
- cooperative society
- directors
- criminal procedure
- prima facie evidence
- Maharashtra
Judgment
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3133 OF 2026
Deepali Manoj Tated .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2881 OF 2026
ANAND IN
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3133 OF 2026
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
Naina Deval Shah & ors. .Intervenors
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.02
20:18:13 +0530
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Deepali Manoj Tated .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2999 OF 2026
Kantilal S/o. Balaso Holkar .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3136 OF 2026
Bharatkumar Ratanlal Chordiya .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Anand 1 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2880 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3136 OF 2026
Naina Deval Shah & ors. .Intervenors
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Bharatkumar Ratanlal Chordiya .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal &
Mr. Rohit Jain i/b. Jayakar and Partners, for the Applicant in
B.A.No.3136 of 2026
Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal a/w. Mr. Rohit Jain i/b. Jayakar and Partners,
Advocates, for the Applicant in B.A.No. 3133 of 2026
Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare and Mr. Anay Joshi i/b.
Akshara Madake, for the Applicant in B. A. No. 2999 of 2026
Mr. Ronak Shah a/w. Mr. Viraj Shelatkar, Mr. Mohanish Satwilkar,
Advocates, for the Intervenors
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP, for the Respondent – State
Mr. Vinod Patil, PI, Shirur Police Station, Pune (Rural) present
Mr. B. K. Bhawar, H.C./2336, Shirur Police Station, Pune (Rural)
present
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 01.09.2026
P. C.
1. This is a group of three Bail Applications. B. A. No. 3136 of 2026
is filed by Accused No. 16. Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel
Anand 2 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
represents the Applicant in this matter. B. A. No. 2999 of 2026 is filed
by Accused No. 21. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel represents the Applicant
in this matter, whereas B. A. No. 3133 of 2026 is filed by Accused No.
19. Mr. Dhadiwal, learned Counsel represents the Applicant in this
matter. The facts are common. All the three Applicants before me are
the Directors of Anand Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Shirur,
District – Pune rather were Directors between 2012 and 2022 as
argued by them. The prosecution case stems out from the fact that
these Directors, being in-charge of affairs of the Anand Nagari Sahakari
Patsanstha Maryadit, Shirur, District – Pune passed two tharavs, one in
the year 2013 for Rs. 25,00,000/- in giving the said amount to the
Accused No. 1 namely the Chairman of the said Patsanstha rather his
Company – Megh Hans Trading Company. In the next two years, since
the said loan amount disbursed could not be recovered and repaid, it
swelled up to Rs.8.00/- Crores upon which the Directors of the
Company granted an over draft on the fixed deposits which were there
in the Company and passed a second tharav for Rs. 25,00,000/-
pursuant to which the amount thereafter, swelled to Rs. 16/- Crores
due to non-payment. It is the prosecution case that all 26 Directors,
thereafter, agreed to sign the Minutes and Resolution and give a loan
of Rs. 27/- Crores to offset the aforesaid twin amounts to the Accused
No. 1 which was received by Accused No. 1 and his Companies. There
Anand 3 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
was a default thereafter but it is equally pleaded and shown that
Accused No. 1 in the interregnum had refunded and redeposited back
approximately Rs.11/- Crores, out of Rs.25/- Crores which also needs
to be taken into account. Applicants before me are the Directors of the
said Patsanstha. Accused No. 1 is the principal Accused. These
Directors were not named in the FIR dated 09.07.2024 filed by the
prosecution. But pursuant to subsequent investigation, have been
indicted solely on the basis that they were the Directors between 2012
and 2022, during which the aforesaid two tharavs and the sanction to
give loan was signed by the said Directors by virtue of the Resolution
passed by the Board of Directors which is heavily relied upon by the
prosecution. The only role attributed to the three Applicants as
Directors is that they have signed the board Resolution of the meetings
held on 31.12.2013 and 31.01.2020 when the aforementioned loan
amount of Rs. 27/- Crores was sanctioned. Another argument put forth
by prosecution is to the effect that they had attended the board
meetings and therefore, were an integral part and parcel for
sanctioning of the loan and probably even signatories to the said loans.
To the extent of the Applicants having received any amounts, it is
prima facie answered by the prosecution that save and except, Accused
No.1 and Accused No.2, none of the Applicants before me were
beneficiaries of the amounts. This is the stated position. The
Anand 4 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
Intervenors duly represented by Advocate Mr. Shah would, however,
argue that the Applicants are jointly and severally responsible for the
present state of affairs of the Patsanstha in view of a common
conspiracy by them with Accused No. 1 and they having in the
interregnum withdrawn an amount of approximately Rs. 15/- Crores
from the Patsanstha. On a pointed question being asked to the
prosecution with regard to the submissions made by Mr. Shah, learned
Counsel on behalf of the Intervenors, the prosecution has informed the
Court that the withdrawal of the amounts by these Directors were with
regard to the deposits made by them. In that view of the matter, insofar
as the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Intervenors is
concerned, that would ultimately be a matter for trial and cannot be
considered at the bail stage. For the purpose of granting bail and to
prima facie see the complicity of the Applicants, the Intervenors have
heavily relied upon the Statutory Audit Report appended at page 252
of the Petition. Mr. Shah would vehemently submit that indictment of
the Applicants as Directors and in-charge of the Patsanstha and its
affairs has been taken cognizance of in the said Statutory Audit Report.
However, according to the Applicants, insofar as the Directors of the
Company apart from the principal Accused persons are concerned, they
have been given a clean chit which is prima facie evident from the
answer given to a question at page 252. Mr. Ponda has taken me
Anand 5 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
through the same. This Statutory Audit Report is dated 24.01.2024 and
it is placed on record. Prima facie no direct role of the Applicants
having been shown to the Court nor the prosecution having established
that the Applicants were beneficiaries of any amounts with regard to
the two tharavs as also the sanction of loan of Rs. 27/- Crores by the
Patsanstha in favour of Accused No. 1 and his firms - Megh Hans
Trading Company and Meghraj Hansraj And Sons i. e. the twin firms
belonging to Accused Nos. 1 & 2, I am inclined to consider the case of
the Applicants for grant of bail. The Applicants shall undoubtedly
co-operate with the investigation carried out by the prosecution as and
when called for. All the Applicants have made out a case for grant of
bail and they all are granted bail in their respective Applications on the
following terms and conditions :-
2. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and finding,
Bail Applications of the Applicants are allowed subject to the following
terms and conditions :-
(i) Applicant – Deepali Manoj Tated is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No. 0626 of 2024;
(ii) Applicant – Kantilal Balaso Holkar is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
Anand 6 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
CR. No. 0626 of 2024;
(iii) Applicant – Bharatkumar Ratanlal Chordiya is directed
to be immediately released from prison in connection
with CR. No. 0626 of 2024;
(iv) All three Applicants are directed to be released on bail
on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- each (Rs. Fifty
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(v) All three Applicants shall report to the Investigating
Officer at Shirur Police Station, Pune, once every month,
on the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter
shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(vi) The Applicants shall co-operate with the conduct of the
trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all
dates, unless specifically exempted. The Applicants shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct
shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of
bail;
(vii) The Applicants shall not leave the country without the
Anand 7 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
prior permission of the Trial Court and shall deposit
their passports with the Trial Court;
(viii) The Applicants shall not influence any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(ix) The Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer
informed of their current residential addresses and
mobile telephone numbers and shall forthwith inform
the Investigating Officer of any change in their
residential addresses or mobile telephone numbers, as
and when such change occurs; and
(x) Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicants.
3. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited
for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
4. All three Bail Application Nos. 3133 of 2026, 2999 of 2026 and
Anand 8 of 9
18. BA 3133-2026 (common order).doc
3136 of 2026 are allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Interim
Application Nos. 2881 of 2026 and 2880 of 2026 are also accordingly
disposed of.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)
Anand 9 of 9
Checking your session…