Bombay High Court

NIVRUTI LAXMAN ALAPUREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

Bail was granted as the applicant’s role was limited to clerical functions and no further custodial interrogation was necessary.

Summary

The applicant, Nivruti Laxman Alapure, a Munim (accountant) of Manjara Seeds Pvt. Ltd., sought bail in a case involving alleged misappropriation of soybean deposits under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the company failed to pay agriculturists for soybean processed into seeds, with the primary blame placed on the company's owner and directors. The applicant argued he had no decision‑making authority, derived no wrongful gain, and that the evidence against him was purely documentary and already seized, making further detention unnecessary. The State contended that as the accountant, the applicant facilitated financial transactions and was aware of the misconduct, warranting denial of bail. The Court examined the FIR, charge‑sheet, and statements, finding that the applicant’s role was limited to issuing acknowledgments and not to managing payments or disposals, and that continued custody served no purpose. Consequently, the Court granted bail on personal recognizance with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the accountant, as a mere employee without decision‑making authority, is entitled to bail despite the alleged financial misconduct.
Whether the nature of the offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, justifies continued pre‑trial detention.
Whether the documentary evidence already in the prosecution’s custody eliminates the need for further custodial interrogation.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
undertrial detention
accountant
misappropriation
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
personal recognizance bond

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23826
951-BA-919-26.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
951 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 919 OF 2026

Nivruti Laxman Alapure
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
......
Mr. Gajanan G. Kadam, Advocate for Applicant
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 applicant

and the learned APP for respondent-State.

2. By the present application, the applicant seeks his 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 applicant submits that the applicant was

working as a Munim (Accountant) with a company namely Manjara Seeds

Pvt. Ltd., Harangul. The company is owned by accused No.1 – Hanmant

Mamadge, whereas accused Nos.2 and 3, namely Anita Mamadge and

Udhav Mamadge, are its Directors. The applicant was merely an employee

discharging duties as an accountant. Learned counsel submits that the

principal allegations in the charge-sheet are directed against accused No.1 –

Hanmant Mamdge, who had allegedly processed the soyabean entrusted by
951-BA-919-26.odt
2

various agriculturists into seeds and sold the same in the market. The

agriculturists had stored their soyabean in the said company with an

expectation of receiving the agreed consideration. However, when they

demanded payment, the company failed to make payment.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had no concern

with the financial management, policy decisions or business affairs of the

company. He was neither a partner nor a Director of the company and was

not responsible for making payments to the agriculturists. The applicant has

been in custody since 01.04.2026. It is submitted that there is no material

demonstrating that the applicant derived any wrongful gain or actively

participated in the alleged misappropriation. He submits that the

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

evidence collected by the prosecution is documentary in nature and the

same has already been seized by the Investigating Agency. Nothing remains

to be recovered from the applicant. Therefore, his further custodial

detention is not necessary. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks grant of

bail.

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

that the applicant was serving as the accountant of the company and was

actively handling its financial transactions and records. Being the

accountant, the applicant was aware of the business dealings of the

company and facilitated the transactions relating to acceptance of soyabean
951-BA-919-26.odt
3

from the agriculturists. The acknowledgments in respect of the deposited

produce were issued through him and, therefore, his role cannot be termed

as merely clerical. Learned APP further submits that despite receiving the

produce from numerous agriculturists, the company failed to make payment

and thereafter accused No.1 absconded, resulting in substantial financial

loss to the agriculturists. Considering the magnitude of the offence and the

role attributed to the applicant, he prays for rejection of the application.

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

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

FIR, charge-sheet and the material placed on record and the statements

made by the agriculturists.

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
951-BA-919-26.odt
4

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.

8. So far as the present applicant is concerned, the material collected

during investigation indicates that he was working as an accountant in the

company. The specific role attributed to him is that he remained present at

the time of acceptance of soyabean from the agriculturists and issued

acknowledgments thereof. Prima facie, the record does not indicate that the

applicant was entrusted with decision-making authority regarding disposal

of the produce or payment of sale consideration to the agriculturists. The

principal allegations regarding misappropriation and non-payment are

directed against accused No.1 and the management of the company.

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

filed. The evidence against the applicant is mainly documentary in nature

and is already in the custody of the prosecution. Nothing remains to be

recovered from the applicant. The applicant has been incarcerated since

01.04.2026. At this stage, no material is pointed out showing that his further

custodial interrogation is required. Having regard to the nature of

allegations, the role attributed to the applicant and the stage of the

investigation, continued detention of the applicant as an undertrial prisoner

would not serve any useful purpose.
951-BA-919-26.odt
5

10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant deserves to be

enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

I. The application is allowed.

II. Applicant – Nivrutti Laxman Alapure 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),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing a Personal
Recognizance Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial

Court on every effective date, unless specifically exempted by the Trial

Court.

(b) The applicant shall not shall not tamper with the prosecution

evidence.

mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall intimate any change.

(d) The applicants shall cooperate with the trial and shall not seek

unnecessary adjournments.

(e) In the event of breach of the condition, it will be open for the

prosecution or the complainant to approach the concerned Court for

cancellation of bail.
951-BA-919-26.odt
6

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.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…