Bombay High Court

SANDEP SUBHASHRAO DESHMUKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 3 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant, subject to conditions.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC filed by Sandeep Subhashrao Deshmukh, an insurance agent alleged to have participated in a large-scale fraud involving fake fixed‑deposit receipts that misappropriated approximately Rs 8.75 crore from Union Bank of India customers. The prosecution alleged that Deshmukh, though not a bank employee, acted as a conduit, obtaining signed cheques from customers, forging fixed‑deposit receipts, and colluding with bank officials who later received anticipatory bail. The defence argued that Deshmukh had no authority over bank transactions, was merely an intermediary, and that his prolonged pre‑trial detention since May 2024 amounted to punishment, especially since co‑accused bank officials had been released on bail. The court examined the parity principle, the applicant’s lack of signing authority, and the absence of evidence that he fabricated signatures, concluding that bail was appropriate subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed with a personal bond and several reporting and non‑interference conditions, and the interim application was also disposed.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused who is not a bank employee but is alleged to have facilitated a large fraud.
Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused who have been granted anticipatory bail warrants bail for the applicant.
Whether the length of pre‑trial detention amounts to punishment justifying bail.
Whether the risk of re‑offending or tampering with evidence outweighs the presumption of innocence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 381, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
fraud
fixed deposit
insurance agent
bank fraud
anticipatory bail
parity
pre‑trial detention
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

36.BA.589.2026+.doc

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

BAIL APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2026

Sandeep Subhashrao Deshmukh .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2847 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2026

Union of India .. Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Sandeep Subhashrao Deshmukh .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Ujjwalkumar Chavhan a/w. Mr. Bhushan Yadav, Mr. Aditya
Hire, Ms. Sana Shaikh and Mr. Shivang Kute, Advocates for
Applicant.
 Mr. Shishir Hiray, PP a/w. Mr. Krishna Jaihar, Mr. Ankit Patil and
Ms. Aruna Borkar for Respondent No.1 – State.
 Mr. Shubham Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 ASI – I. R. Sayyed, Manmad Police Station.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Chavhan, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

Hiray, learned PP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Joshi, learned

Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. This is an Application by Applicant under Section 439 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking Bail in

1 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

connection with C.R. No.213 of 2024 registered with Manmad City

Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 467,

420, 409, 406, 381 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. On 18.08.2026, this Application was adjourned to

01.09.2026 and heard today.

4. According to prosecution case, huge sum of money has been

misappropriated by issuing fake Fixed Deposit receipts to customers.

Subsequent thereto, withdrawal of the amounts from the Bank

Accounts of the customers by obtaining checks from the Bank’s

customers inside the Bank’s premises by Accused persons. Applicant is

one of the said Accused persons. He is not a Bank employee. The Bank

in question is Union Bank of India, Manmad Branch. The total

misappropriated amount from the customers in this form is

approximately Rs.8.75 Crores. The indictment and arrest of the

Applicant has revealed startling and shocking facts. From his custody,

15 Fixed Deposit receipts were also recovered.

5. Mr. Chavhan, learned Advocate for the Applicant has

submitted written submissions in the form of a written note while

arguing the matter. He has submitted that according to prosecution

case, customers of the Union Bank while intending to invest money in

Fixed Deposit handed over signed cheques of the concerned amounts

to the Applicant who was stationed in inside the premises of Union

2 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

Bank. He would fairly argue and submit that Applicant was not an

employee of Union Bank of India. He would submit that Applicant was

an insurance agent of joint venture Company called Messrs Star Union

Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company Limited (for short, ‘SUD Life

Insurance Company’). He would once again in his usual fair-

mindedness submit Applicant was functioning from the premises of the

Manmad Branch of Union Bank for approximately 5 to 6 years and his

physical presence and functioning inside the premises of the Union

Bank was with the absolute knowledge and permission of the Bank and

more specifically, the Bank Officials namely, the Branch Manager, the

Deputy Branch Manager, the Clerk and the Cashier.

6. He would submit that customers entering the premises of

Union Bank and intending to invest in Fixed Deposits were referred by

the Branch Manager and the Bank staff and even the security

personnel. The stand of the prosecution is that though Applicant was

not a signing Authority of the Bank, nor was an Official Authority to

sign or authorize, Fixed Deposit certificates or high value cheque

investments. He impersonated as an Official, and guided the

customers of the Bank into preparing and filling the Fixed Deposit

Application forms and Bank receipts and thereafter guided them to the

authorized Bank Officers who were the Bank Manager, the Deputy

Bank Manager and the Credit Officer and signature of at least two out

of these three officers were required for issuing Fixed Deposit

3 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

certificates and acceptance of the Application from the customers.

7. He would submit that according to prosecution, this modus

operandi went on for a few years during which many customers

invested their hard-earned amounts in Fixed Deposit receipts while

taking help of the Applicant and handed over signed cheques to him

with the hope that Fixed Deposit amount being invested in their Fixed

Deposit account.

8. According to prosecution, once these cheques were handed

over to the Applicant, he would then manipulate these cheques in

connivance and collusion with the Bank Manager and Deputy Bank

Manager or other staff of the Bank and withdrew the amounts written

on these cheques since they were all self / bearer cheques given by the

investors and customers. He would submit that when the customer

once again approached the Bank it is case of prosecution that

Applicant handed over to them printed Fixed Deposit receipts which

were infact forged and fabricated rather counterfeit Fixed Deposit

receipts. His principal submission is that Applicant is not the

mastermind of the crime and he was not at all the person who was

responsible for carrying out the modus operandi that the co-accused

persons, namely the Bank Manager and the Deputy Bank Manager,

both the concerned Authorized Officers who have been granted

Anticipatory bail who were the real main perpetrators of the fraud and

4 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

therefore, Applicant's role must be distinguished distinctly from that of

the other co-accused persons.

9. Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate would vehemently argue that

Applicant was not privy to the Union Bank of India Cloud network and

Net Banking Server Systems, he was not concerned with verification or

authorization of banking transactions, he was not concerned with

processing of the self, / bearer cheques which were given to him by the

customer and which were deposited by him in the Bank, that he was

not in custody of the original printed inventory of receipts that he was

never in custody of the bank official seal which appeared on the fake

Fixed Deposit receipts, that he was not the signing Authority for

issuance of Fixed Deposit receipts and certificates and most

importantly, he was intermediary in the crime. He would submit role

of the Bank officials and signing Authority in the present case assumes

greater significance than that of the Applicant. He would submit that

all four Bank officials namely, the Branch Manager, Deputy Branch

Manager, Cashier, and Clerk have been granted Anticipatory bail and

therefore, on the ground of parity, the Applicant deserves enlargement

on bail.

10. He would submit that this Court should consider the fact that

the Bank administration has already suspended the other co-accused

persons for their alleged involvement in the aforesaid fraud and

5 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

therefore on the ground of parity, Bank officials who had relevant

official positions and exercise control over the internal banking

processes have received protection by way of Anticipatory bail, the

continued incarceration of the Applicant who was not even a Bank

employee is unwarranted and he should be therefore, released on bail.

11. On the ground of long incarceration, learned Advocate

would submit that Applicant has been in custody since 24.05.2024 and

charge-sheet is filed on 19.08.2024 and the trial has not commenced.

He would submit that since there is no immediate likelihood of the

trial commencing and concluding and the prosecution desiring to

examine 86 witnesses, Applicant has undergone a considerable period

of incarceration and therefore considering that investigation is

complete, the incarceration of the Applicant assumes the character of

pre-trial punishment and therefore the Applicant should be released on

bail.

12. In support of his submissions for releasing the Applicant on

bail, Mr. Chavan would refer to rely upon relied upon the decisions in

the cases of Mangaldas Bandal Vs. DOE 1; Ramchand Kotumal Issrani

Vs. DoE 2; Suraj Chavan vs. DOE 3; Tanaji Mandal Adhikari vs. DOE 4

and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Anil Tuteja vs.

1 Criminal Bail Application No.4998 of 2024 decided on 11.03.2025.
2 Criminal Bail Application No.5350 of 2024 decided on 03.03.2025.
3 Bail Application No. 4141 of 2024 decided on 04.02.2025.
4 Bail Application No.1003 of 2025 decided on 23.12..2025.

6 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

DOE5; Uddhav Singh vs. DOE6; V. Senthil Balaji vs. Deputy Director,

DOE7; Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through DOE 8; Kalvakuntla

Kavitha vs. DOE9; Manish Sisodia vs. DOE 10 and Ramkripal Meena Vs.

DOE11 and would persuade me not to consider the role of the Applicant

as a principal Accused person who induced customers and investors

who came with the idea of depositing their hard-earned money into

Fixed Deposits with the Bank.

13. Complainant and Prosecution case led by PP Mr. Hiray

would submit that he has over a substantial period of time eroded the

hope of the Bank customers by being part of criminal conspiracy to

achieve the common object to defraud the Bank. They both would

submit that the Applicant – Accused is infact the mastermind of the

crime because he gained the confidence of bank customers to such an

extent that he induced them to part with blank signed cheques and

used to call them later for collecting the Fixed Deposit receipt.

Prosecution case is that Applicant used to gain the confidence of the

customer and investors by portraying himself to be a bank employee

and use to pick up their cheques and Fixed Deposit Application form

and obtain their signatures and most importantly he was the person

who used to hand over forged Fixed Deposit receipts to the customer
5 SLP Cr. 3148 of 2025 decided on 15.04.2025.
6 SLP No.18369 of 2024 decided on 17.02.2025.
7 SLP No.3986 of 2024 decided on 26.09.2024.
8 SLP No.5416 of 2024 decided on 28.08.2024.
9 SLP No.10778 of 2024 decided on 27.08.2024.
10 SLP No.8781 of 2024 decided on 09.08.2024.
11 SLP No.3205 of 2024 decided on 30.07.2024.

7 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

which had the Bank seal and signature affixed on the said receipts. The

prosecution case is that in such a manner for over a period of 2 to 3

years, the Applicant eroded the trust of the Bank’s customers.

Prosecution has placed on record details of immovable property

purchased by the Applicant at Chalisgaon in the name of his wife from

the said ill-gotten amount belonging to the customers. Though the

Applicant was not a Bank official, he was occupying a chair in the Bank

premises itself so as to falsely render the customers to believe that he

was an Officer of the Bank and not an insurance agent as claimed by

him.

14. Hence, prosecution would submit that he is the perpetrator

of the crime and he was having complete know-how about the entire

operations and therefore, the Applicant is likely to reoffend himself

and influence witnesses considering his mindset and antecedents.

Hence, they would persuade the Court to dismiss the present

Application.

15. I have heard Mr. Chavhan, learned Advocate for Applicant;

Mr. Hiray, learned PP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Joshi,

learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and considered the record of

the case.

16. The role of the Applicant which can be prima facie seen from

the submissions made by learned Advocate for the Applicant is qua the

8 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

Authority of the other co-accused persons. The Branch Manager, the

Deputy Branch Manager, the Clerk and the Cashier have all been

enlarged on bail. It is the case of the prosecution that these four

Accused persons alongwith Bank’s watchman used to refer the

customers and ask them to approach the Applicant. Though, it is

prima facie seen that the Applicant was appointed as an Agent and

Representative of an Insurance Company to sell insurance policies

however, at the behest of the other co-accused persons he was given a

table and chair to sit in the bank’s premises alongwith the other staff

members.

17. The prosecution case also prima facie shows that the other

co-accused persons, infact referred each and every customer who used

to come to them for the purpose of investment to be made in Fixed

Deposits to the Applicant. That apart, for the prosecution case with

regard to forgery and fabrication of counterfeit Fixed Deposit receipts,

the entire onus cannot be put on the Applicant for the simple reason

that each of the Fixed Deposit receipts when investigated was in

seriatim according to the numbers which were infact manipulated by

the Bank Manager and the Deputy Bank Manager who had the custody

of the seriatim numbers of the said Fixed Deposit receipts.

18. What is more crucial and significant is that though the

Applicant may have been a conduit in handing over the said Fixed

9 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

Deposit receipts to the customers or filling up their Application forms,

the Fixed Deposit receipts had to bear two signatures of the concerned

Officials namely, either that of the Branch Manager or Deputy Bank

Manager or the Credit Officer of the Bank which is seen from the

prosecution case.

19. It is not the prosecution case that the fabrication of these

signatures were done by the Applicant, infact, his modus operandi was

that these Fixed Deposit receipts infact had the signatures of the other

co-accused persons. In so far as recovery is concerned, though it is

argued at the bar that certain recovery of Fixed Deposit receipts has

been made from the person of the Applicant, it is prima facie seen that

15 Fixed Deposit receipts were recovered.

20. Considering the fact the Applicant was not privy to the

internal working system of the Union Bank of India’s cloud networking

system and its banking server system, that he never verified or

authorized any of the bank transactions, nor had any Authority to do

the same and he was also not in custody of the original printed

inventory receipts namely, Fixed Deposit receipts on which the official

seal of the Bank was reproduced and most importantly that he was not

the signing Authority for issuance of Fixed Deposit receipts and the

certificates which were given to the customers/investors, his role to the

extent of the prosecution case will have to be treated at par with the

10 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

other co-accused persons who have infact been granted bail. Hence on

parity in my opinion, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail.

21. Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

Intervenor namely, the Complainant would persuade me to consider

the ignominy of the said customers/investors who have suffered at the

hands of not only the Applicant but also the other co-accused persons,

in losing their hard-earned money.

22. Mr. Joshi as well as Mr. Hiray, both would try to persuade

the Court to direct deposit of certain amounts to the extent of the

losses suffered by the customers/investors in the present case. Mr.

Joshi would submit that the total outlay of the losses and finances to

which the exposure of customers/investors was in the range of

approximately Rs.8.75 Crores in the present case and several

customers/investors were selectively duped. He would therefore

persuade the Court and submit that some stringent condition of

deposit of amount should be imposed by the Court, if at all the Court is

inclined to consider the case of the Applicant on parity and enlarge

him on bail.

23. Mr. Hiray, learned PP for the State would draw the Court’s

attention to the fact that the Applicant is bound to re-offend himself in

view of his antecedents and a similar conduct while rendering his

services in Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank in the past. They both in

11 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

tandem would submit that in that view of the matter imposition of the

condition of deposit should be made by the Court.

24. I have considered the submissions made by both learned

Advocates, however, it is not the prosecution case that it has traced the

end user of the amounts and it has found that the Applicant before me

is a beneficiary of any amount though prosecution’s has pursuant to

investigation stated that the Applicant has invested in a land parcel in

Taluka-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon which is in the name of his wife.

25. The prosecution will undoubtedly be at liberty to take

appropriate steps as available to them in law for attachment of the said

property if the investigation so points out in that direction that any

amount with regard to the present lis was surreptitiously received by

the Applicant. However from the issues, argued by Mr. Chavan and

the papers placed before the Court, the Applicant has made out a case

for grant of bail. In view of my aforesaid prima facie observations

Applicant is granted bail subject to following conditions:-

(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released

from prison in connection with Crime No.213 of

2024;

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

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

Five Thousand only) with one or two surety /

12 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

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

13 of 14
36.BA.589.2026+.doc

cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant.

26. However, at the request made by Mr. Joshi, the learned

Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant and that too on

behalf of scores of similarly placed investors/customers who have lost

their hard-earned money, I am inclined to consider his request for

expeditious disposal of the trial by the Trial Court. The Trial Court is

directed to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible within the

shortest possible time.

27. 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.

28. I must also put in a word of appreciation for learned

Advocate for Complainant, Mr. Joshi who has ably assisted the Court

and conducted the present matter gracefully on behalf of his client as

an Officer of this Court.

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

terms. Interim Application is also disposed.

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

Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
14 of 14
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.04
11:11:07 +0530

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…