Bombay High Court

VINAY VASANTLAL SANGHAVIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 2 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant, finding no prima facie involvement in the alleged fraud and concluding that he is not a beneficiary of the loan disbursement.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Vinay Vasantlal Sanghavi, who was arrested as Accused No.15 in a case involving alleged cheating, breach of trust and forgery related to a cooperative society. The applicant, an Expert Director of Anagri Sahakari Patsanstha, argued that he had no voting rights, did not sign loan documents, and was not a beneficiary of the Rs 27 crore loan siphoned by the principal accused. The prosecution contended that, as an Expert Director with financial expertise, he was aware of the fraud. The court examined the statutory audit report under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, which showed no involvement by the applicant, and noted his role in recovering Rs 11‑12 crores for depositors. Relying on its earlier order granting bail to three other directors and finding no prima facie case against the applicant, the court granted bail with conditions. The order was limited to bail and did not address the merits of the criminal charges.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, as an Expert Director, is entitled to bail despite being charged under serious offences under the IPC and MPID Act.
Whether the applicant had any role in the disbursement of the loan and was a beneficiary of the alleged fraud.
Whether the statutory audit report under Section 88 of the MCS Act clears the applicant of complicity.
Whether the conditions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail are satisfied.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 34, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act — s. 88
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
expert director
cooperative society
loan fraud
financial crime
statutory audit
Maharashtra
criminal procedure

Judgment

6.BA.3354.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO.3354 OF 2026

Vinay Vasantlal Sanghavi .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3009 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3354 OF 2026
....................
 Mr. M. P. Rao, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Arsh Misra and Mr. S. B.
Borhade, Advocates for Applicant.
 Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
 Mr. Viraj Shelatkar a/w. Mr. Ronak Shah, Advocates for Intervenor
in Interim Application No.3009 of 2026.
 Mr. Rahul Bhagwat, PSI, Shirur Police Station, Pune.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr.

Shelatkar, learned Advocate for Intervenor in Interim Application

No.3009 of 2026.

2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R.

No.626 of 2024 registered with Shirur Police Station for offences

punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the

1 of 7
6.BA.3354.2026.doc

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999.

3. Application is filed by the Applicant who is arraigned as

Accused No.15 in C.R. No. 626 of 2024. There are total number of 26

Accused in the present crime. FIR is registered on 09.07.2024.

4. Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate would submit that

Applicant was appointed as Expert Director in the Cooperative Society

named Anagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit at Shirur between the

years - 2012 and 2017 of the concerned Pat Sanstha and had virtually

no role whatsoever in receiving any amount from the said Pat Sanstha

under the twin Tharavas of Rs.25,00,000/- each of the years 2013 and

2015 as also with regard to Accused No.1 having received the loan of

Rs.27 Crores pursuant to signing of the Resolutions by the Board of

Directors of the Pat Sanstha.

5. He would vehemently argue that Applicant did not have any

right to vote or sign any papers pertaining to the Tharavas or for that

matter any loan amount given by the Pat Sanstha. He would submit

that Applicant is not named in the initial FIR but has been arraigned as

an Accused alongwith other Directors being responsible for causing

loss of Rs.16 Crores to the Pat Sanstha. He would submit that

Applicant is arrested on 11.04.2026 and he is incarcerated since then.

6. On merits, he would submit that the statutory audit Report

under Section 88 of the MCS Act and Rules thereunder has been

2 of 7
6.BA.3354.2026.doc

placed on record which does not show any complicity of the Applicant

or any role having been played by the Applicant with regard to the

alleged loss caused to the Pat Sanstha.

7. He would also persuade the Court to consider the case of the

Applicant as an Expert Director being on a much higher footing than

the other Directors of the Pat Sanstha who were all otherwise related

directly to the principal Accused No.1 who had received the amount of

Rs. amount of Rs. 27 Crores as loan from the Pat Sanstha in the name

of his trading firms, Meghas Trading Company Limited.

8. He would submit that Applicant had resigned in the year

2022 despite which he has been arraigned as an Accused in a case of

cheating, breach of trust, and forgery.

9. Per contra, Advocate - Mr. Shelatkar, appears on behalf of

the Intervenor and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP appears on behalf of

the State.

10. They both in tandem would submit that Applicant being an

Expert Director was fully aware about the siphoning of the amount by

the Chordiya family and Accused Nos.1 to 10 from the Pat Sanstha.

They would submit that as an Expert Director, though Applicant may

not have a right to vote or get elected as Office Bearer but he was a

person having specialization in finance because of which he was

appointed as Expert Director.

3 of 7
6.BA.3354.2026.doc

11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned

Advocates for the respective parties.

12. At the outset, it is seen that Applicant was an Expert Director

and it is not the prosecution case that he was a beneficiary of any of

the amounts which were disbursed by the Pat Sanstha to Accused

No.1’s firms namely, Meghas Limited, Meghraj Hansraj & Sons,

Meghanas Sales and Meghas Trading Company. The record primarily

shows that Applicant being the Expert Director also took steps to

recover the amount on behalf of Depositors and in that process

recovered a substantial amount of Rs.11 to 12 Crores and many small

depositors were repaid back their amounts.

13. It is prima facie seen that Applicant was appointed as an

Expert Director due to his expertise and not due to any proximity with

the Chordiya family. The prosecution case qua Applicant being the

beneficiary is in the negative. The statutory audit report under Section

88 of the MCS Act also does not show any role played by the Applicant

for disbursement of the loan amount to Accused No.1 and his various

firms. Neither the Applicant has been a signatory for the purpose of

loan disbursement at any point of time. I have had the occasion of

passing an order with regard to three other Accused persons who were

Directors of the Pat Sanstha in the present crime on 31.08.2026. That

order has already been uploaded, and three Directors of the

4 of 7
6.BA.3354.2026.doc

Patasanstha who had also been similarly charged with causing loss of

Rs.16 Crores to the Company have been enlarged on bail. I have given

substantial reasons in the said order, which for the sake of brevity, I

am not repeating them herein again.

14. The case of the Applicant before me is fully covered by my

aforesaid order and decision while granting bail to the three Directors

of the Patasanstha who were, infact otherwise related to the principal

Accused No.1 who had received the disbursement of the loan amount

of Rs.27 Crores. In view of my aforesaid prima facie observations and

findings, and the role of the Applicant as attributed to him while

working in the Patasanstha and even by the prosecution case he not

being a beneficiary, the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

The Applicant had virtually no role to play in the day-to-day

management of the Patasanstha, had no statutory voting rights, had no

Authority to sanction loans, was not a custodian of the funds of the

Patasanstha, and therefore, did not have any entrustment or control

over the affairs of the Patasanstha.

15. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant is granted bail subject

to following conditions:-

(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from

prison in connection with Crime No. 626 of 2024;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

5 of 7
6.BA.3354.2026.doc

furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty

Thousand only) with one or two surety / sureties of the

like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the

concerned Police Station, once every month on the first

Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

p.m.;

(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically

exempted and will not take any unnecessary

adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the

prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;

(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

of his current address and mobile contact number and /

or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from

time to time, as applicable; and

(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation

of bail granted to the Applicant.

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

6 of 7
6.BA.3354.2026.doc

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.

17. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above

terms.

H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.03
17:50:00 +0530

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…