Bombay High Court
MANOHAR ARUNACHALAM MARUTHUVARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted to Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar but must be denied to Ulahanathan Arunachalam because the former's alleged involvement does not defeat bail, whereas the latter's participation in the large misappropriation establishes a prima facie case.
Summary
The case involves alleged misappropriation of Rs.122 crore from New India Co-operative Bank by its General Manager, Hitesh Mehta, who is accused of distributing the funds to several co‑accused, including Arunachalam (A6) and his son Manohar (A4). The prosecution alleges that A6 received Rs.40 crore (or Rs.33 crore per A1's statement) and that A4 was present when the money was handed over, suggesting possible participation. The defence argued that the inconsistency in the amounts creates doubt, that A4 had no direct benefit, and that other co‑accused had been granted bail on parity grounds. The court examined the material evidence, noting that A4’s alleged transactions through his firms amounted to only Rs.1.10 crore and were not contested, whereas A6 was found to have an unholy alliance with A1 causing massive loss. Consequently, the court granted bail to Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar with strict conditions but rejected bail for Ulahanathan Arunachalam. The order emphasized that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the presence of A4 during the alleged money transfer establishes a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the inconsistency in the alleged amounts received by A6 creates reasonable doubt warranting bail.
- Whether the principle of parity requires granting bail to A4 and A6 given that other co‑accused were released.
- Whether the alleged financial transactions of A4 through his firms are material to the bail determination.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 238, 316(5), 317, 336(2) (3), 338, 340, 344, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- economic offences
- bank fraud
- misappropriation
- parity principle
- prima facie case
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 728 OF 2026
Mr. Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1750 OF 2026
Mr. Ulahanathan Arunachalam @ Arun Bhai …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Shailesh Kumar with Mr. Manoj Raut for the Applicants.
Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Bajirao Naik, PI, Unit 11, EOW, Mumbai, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. The applicants, who are Original Accused Nos.4 and 6 (‘A4’
and ‘A6’) respectively, seeking their release on bail in
Cr.No.68/2025, registered with Dadar Police Station, Mumbai for
the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) on the report dated
15.02.2025 filed by Devarshi Shishirkumar Ghosh and,
subsequently, transferred to Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’),
Unit XI, Banking -3 and, re-registered as Cr.No.17/2025 for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 344, 340, 338, 336(2)
(3), 317, 238 and 61(2) of BNS.
Page 1 of 5
P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC
3. The prosecution case is that, at the relevant time, the
Accused No.1 Hitesh Mehta (A1) was working as General Manager
and Head Accountant with New India Co-operative Bank Ltd. He
was in possession of Rs.122 Crores of the bank as its trustee. It is
alleged that A1 illegally withdrew that amount of Rs.122 Crores
from time to time and gave it to the co-accused persons as under :-
Name of Accused Amount EOW Label :
alleged Beneficiary
Dharmesh Paun (A2) Rs.41.00 Crores YES
Arunachalam (A6) Rs.40.00 Crores YES
Hiren Bhanushali Rs.24.00 Crores YES
Javed Iqbal Azam Rs.18.00 Crores YES
Ajay Singh Rathore Rs.7.50 Crores YES
Kapil Dedhia Rs.6.00 Crores YES
Pawan Jaiswal Rs.3.10 Crores YES
Rajeev Ranjan Pandey Rs.2.35 Crores YES
Gauri Bhanu Rs.2.00 Crores YES
Abhimanyu Bhuyan (A3) Rs.1.00 Cores YES
Shoukat Jamadar Rs.0.35 Crores YES
Total alleged benefit Rs.145.30 Crores
Therefore, Mr. Devarshi Ghosh, the then Chief Accountant Officer,
New India Co-operative Bank Ltd., Prabhadevi lodged the report
and it led to registration of the aforesaid crime. During
investigation, police recorded the statements of the witnesses and
arrested the accused persons. Co-accused Hiren Bhanushali
absconded to United Kingdom. On completion of investigation,
police submitted the charge-sheet. It was followed by
supplementary charge-sheet and additional supplementary
charge-sheet. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court
declined to release the applicants on bail. Hence, these
Applications.
Page 2 of 5
P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC
4. Mr. Kumar, the learned Counsel for the applicants
submitted that, the case of the prosecution is that A6 had received
Rs.40 Crores from A1. However, the statement given by A1 during
the course of investigation claims that A1 had allegedly given
Rs.33 Crores to A6. Said inconsistency creates doubt about the
veracity of the prosecution case against A6. It is the case of the
prosecution that applicant Manohar Maruthuvar (A4) is son of A6.
Mr. Kumar submitted that as per the prosecution case, A4 was
only present when the A1 had given the alleged amount to A6. As
such, A4 has no role in this crime nor he is the beneficiary. Mr.
Kumar highlighted that A2 – Dharmesh Paun, the beneficiary of
Rs.41 Crores, has been released on bail on medical grounds, by the
trial Court. Javed Iqbal Azam (A5) had allegedly received Rs.18
Crores and he has been released on bail by the Sessions Court.
Rest of the accused are also granted bail. Therefore, he urged to
release the applicants on bail on principle of parity.
5. In reply, Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP submitted that huge
amount of money has been siphoned by A1 with the help of all the
co-accused persons. The material on record clearly show that the
said amount was given to A6 by the A1 in the office of A4. As such,
there is a prima facie case against both the applicants and, they are
not entitled for bail.
6. I have considered these submissions. Insofar as A4 is
concerned, the material on record indicates that the amount was
given to A6 by A1 in the presence of A4. As per the record, A4 has
two business firms namely M/s. Bliss Enterprises and M/s.
Rashmi Enterprises. The witness Prem Rawal has disclosed that,
intermittently, both the applicants used to give him Rs.50,000/-
to Rs.1 Lakh to deposit in the bank account of the aforesaid firms
Page 3 of 5
P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC
which the accused father and son used to transfer in other bank
accounts. However, Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicants
states that the said transactions through the bank accounts of the
said companies are not more than Rs.1.10 Crores. This contention
is not controverted by the I.O., who is present today. In this
background, A4 is entitled to be released on bail.
7. However, considering that A6 had established unholy
alliance with A1 to misappropriate Rs.40 Crores and thus, caused
huge loss of public money to the bank, he is not entitled for bail.
8. As a result, the B.A. No.1750/2026 filed by Mr. Ulahanathan
Arunachalam @ Arun Bhai, is rejected and, B. A. No.728 of 2026
filed by Mr. Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar, is allowed on the
following terms and conditions :-
(i) The applicant – Mr. Manohar Arunachalam
Maruthuvar be released on bail in Cr.No.68/2025 initially
registered with Dadar Police Station, Mumbai and
subsequently re-registered with Economic Offences Wing
(‘EOW’), Unit XI, Banking -3 as Cr.No.17/2025, on his
executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one
or more sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Economic
Offences Wing (‘EOW’), Unit XI, Banking -3 on 1st day of
each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till
conclusion of the trial.
(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court.
Page 4 of 5
P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC
(iv) The applicant shall not leave Mumbai till conclusion
of the trial. He shall surrender his passport with the I.O.
(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(vi) On being released from jail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vii) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.
(viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application and should not influence the outcome of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
merits of the case.
9. At this stage, as requested by Mr. Kumar, the applicant - Mr.
Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar is granted four weeks time to
furnish the surety from the date of his release from jail. Till then,
the applicant be released on bail on his executing a P.R. Bond in
the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and, depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
in lieu of furnishing the surety. On furnishing such surety/ies, the
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be returned.
PREETI
HEERO (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
JAYANI
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.09.16 Page 5 of 5
17:03:51 +0530
Checking your session…