ANITA HANMANT MAMADGE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:24030
                                                                            951-BA-830-26.odt
                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           951 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2026

          1. Anita W/o. Hanmant Mamadge
          2. Uddhav S/o. Hanmant Mamdge                            … Applicants

                VERSUS

          The State of Maharashtra and Another                     … Respondents
                                             ......
          Mr. Gajanan G. Kadam, Advocate for Applicants
          Mr. S.V. Hange, APP for Respondent-State
                                             ......

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE        : 17 JUNE, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard learned counsel Mr. G.G. Kadam, Advocate for the applicants

          and the learned APP for respondent-State.


          2.     By the present application, the applicants seek their release on bail in

          connection with Crime No. 171 of 2026 registered with MIDC Latur Police

          Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4),

          3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.


          3.     Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 –

          Anita Hanmant Mamadge is the wife of accused No.1 Hanmant Mamadge

          and applicant No.2 – Uddhav Hanmant Mamadge is the son of accused

          No.1. It is submitted that though the applicants are shown as Directors of

          Manjara Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Harangul, the entire business affairs and day-to-day

          management of the company were looked after exclusively by accused No.1
                                                                   951-BA-830-26.odt
                                      2

– Hanmant Mamadge. Learned counsel submits that the allegations in the

FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly indicate that

accused No.1 was the person who was accepting soyabean from the

agriculturists, processing the same into seeds and dealing with its sale in the

market.


4.     Learned counsel further submits that the applicants had no active

participation in the day-to-day business transactions of the company and

were not involved in the operational management thereof. Merely because

they are Directors of the company, they cannot be held liable for every act

allegedly committed by accused No.1. Learned counsel submits that the

investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The

evidence collected by the prosecution is documentary in nature and is

already in the custody of the Investigating Agency. Nothing remains to be

recovered from the applicants. The applicants are in custody since

01.04.2026, and their further detention is not necessary for the purpose of

investigation. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks grant of bail.


5.     Per contra, learned APP opposes the application. He submits that the

applicants are admittedly Directors of the company and the alleged

transactions were carried out through the company of which they were

office bearers. It is submitted that a large number of agriculturists have

suffered substantial monetary loss on account of non-payment of the value

of the soyabean entrusted to the company. Learned APP submits that being
                                                                 951-BA-830-26.odt
                                      3

Directors, the applicants cannot completely deny their responsibility towards

the affairs of the company. Considering the magnitude of the offence and the

financial loss caused to the agriculturists, he prays for rejection of the

application.


6.     I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. I have also perused the

FIR, charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation.


7.     The FIR is lodged by one Gunwant Ramrao Walse. The allegations

disclose that the informant and several agriculturists had stored their

soyabean produce with Manjara Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Harangul. Accused No.1 –

Hanmant Mamdge was managing the affairs of the company, whereas

accused Nos.2 and 3 were its Directors. The prosecution alleges that the

entrusted soyabean was processed into seeds and sold in the market. The

informant and his son had deposited soyabean worth Rs.19,69,632/- with

the company. Similar deposits were made by several other agriculturists.

However, despite repeated demands, payment was not made and ultimately

the company premises were found closed. The allegations indicate that

accused No.1 became unavailable and switched off his mobile phone. The

material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that accused

No.1 – Mamadge was managing the affairs of the company and was actively

dealing with the transaction.
                                                                  951-BA-830-26.odt
                                       4

8.     It appears from the charge-sheet that applicant No.1 – Anita

Hanmant Mamadge and applicant No.2 – Udhav Hanmant Mamadge are

shown as Directors of the company. However, at this stage, no specific overt

act of actual participation in the day-to-day transactions has been attributed

to either of the applicants. Prima facie, the material on record indicates that

accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamadge was the person who was looking after

and controlling the business affairs of the company. The allegations

regarding acceptance of produce, processing thereof and non-payment to

the agriculturists are principally directed against him.


9.     The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been

filed. The evidence collected during investigation is mainly documentary in

nature. Nothing is pointed out to show that any further custodial

interrogation of the applicants is required. The applicants are available for

trial and their presence can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions.


10.    At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I am of the prima facie view that continued incarceration of the

applicants is not warranted. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 –

Hanmant Mamadge is absconding. The present applicants cannot be denied

bail solely on account of his conduct, when the role attributed to the

applicants stands on a different footing from that of accused No.1 –

Hanmant Mamadge, who is alleged to have actively managed the affairs of

the company and against whom the main allegations are made.
                                                                   951-BA-830-26.odt
                                         5

11.      In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants deserve to be

enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order:


                                       ORDER

I.       The application is allowed.


II.      Applicants (1) Anita Hanmant Mamadge, and (2) Udhav Hanmant

Mamadge be released on bail in connection with Crime No.171 of 2026

registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences

punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, on each of them executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount, subject to

the following conditions:

(a)      The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial
Court on every effective date, unless specifically exempted by the Trial
Court.

(b)      The applicants shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or
promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to prevent
him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

(c)      The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any
manner.

(d)      The applicants shall furnish their permanent residential addresses
and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and shall intimate any
change.

(e)      The applicants shall cooperate with the trial and shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments.
                                                                       951-BA-830-26.odt
                                          6


(f)        In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.


III.       Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie

in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application.

The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in

this order while deciding the case on its own merits.


IV.        It is clarified that the present order is passed considering the distinct

role attributed to the applicants and the material indicating that accused.

Therefore, this order shall not be construed as creating any right of parity in

favour of accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamadge.



                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE
S P Rane