Bombay High Court
DINESH NARAYAN ANEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as continued incarceration is not warranted without proof of knowledge or intent, especially since other co‑accused have been released.
Summary
The applicant, a passing officer of Mahila Urban Cooperative Credit Society, was arrested in September 2025 for alleged participation in a large-scale fraud involving the siphoning of society funds, charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. The prosecution argued that the applicant’s counter‑signature on cash withdrawal receipts made him a principal accused, while the defence contended that he had no knowledge of the fraud and that his family were also victims. The court noted that the applicant’s role as an employee was undisputed but emphasized that intent and knowledge must be proved at trial. It further observed that out of 33 accused, all but one had been released on bail, including senior officials with greater responsibility. Considering the lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation and the principle of equality among co‑accused, the court found continued incarceration unwarranted. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, as a passing officer who countersigned cash withdrawal receipts, should be denied bail on the ground of being a prime accused.
- Whether the prosecution has sufficiently proved the applicant's knowledge or intent to commit the offences for bail purposes.
- Whether the applicant's continued detention is justified given that the investigation is complete and other co‑accused have been released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 201, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- MPID Act
- cooperative credit society fraud
- passing officer
- criminal procedure
- equality of co‑accused
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44287
RB43BA946-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 946 of 2026
Dinesh Narayan Anekar ... Applicant
Age 41 years, Occu: Service
R/o Khadakpura, Hingoli
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Through the Police Station Officer,
Hingoli Town Police Station,
Dist. Hingoli
.....
Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent State
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATE: 28th September, 2026
ORDER:-
1. The present application is for regular bail by the applicant,
who is arraigned as accused in connection with Crime No. 640 of 2025
registered with Hingoli City Police Station, District- Hingoli, for the
offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409,
408,120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
The applicant was arrested on 16.09.2025 and since then, he is in
custody.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint came to be
lodged by one Arpit Kamalkishor Bagdiya, who alleged that he and his
mother had accounts with Mahila Urban Cooperative Credit Society,
1 of 5
RB43BA946-26
Hingoli since 2023 and they have fixed deposits which is now
amounting to Rs.24,45,000/-. It is further alleged that on maturity of
the said deposit, whenever the complainant and his mother went to
withdraw the money, the Society remained closed and on one or two
occasions, they had also seen the Chairman and when they enquried for
repayment, they were informed that the Society does not have any
money. Since the applicant is said to be an employee of the Cooperative
Credit Society, working as a Passing officer, he has been arraigned as an
accused in the offence. The allegations are that the entire Cooperative
Credit society funds that has been siphoned by the accused persons are
to the tune of Rs.30,78,96,676/- and the total financial loss caused to
the Society and its members are more than 4,43,91,657/-.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that
the present applicant has been behind bars since 16.09.2025. The
investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. He submits
that out of total 33 accused persons, 12 accused are absconding while
16 persons have already been released on bail. Only two persons who
were arrested, including the present applicant, are left in custody. He
submits that the applicant had joined the services of the Cooperative
Credit Society in the year 2021 and there is no recovery of any amount
from the present applicant. He further argues that on the contrary, the
family members of the present applicant have also kept their deposits
to the tune of more than Rs. 12 lakhs in the credit society and
therefore, he, alongwith his family members are also one of the
2 of 5
RB43BA946-26
victims. He further submits that, as the prosecution also involves
offences under the MPID Act, the property of the present applicant has
been attached by the Investigating Agency as, in the event of the
offence being proved, the proceeds of the crime can be recovered
therefrom. He submits that as the applicant is not required for any
further custodial interrogation or for the purpose of investigation, the
periods spend in the custody should be considered and the present
application be allowed. In addition to above he also submits that he
stands in party with the other accused persons who are similarly
situated and have been released on bail.
4. The learned APP appearing for the State submits that the
appointment of the present applicant is not of 2021 but earlier, from
2018, he was working as an Assistant Manager and Passing Officer. He
submits that as far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, all
the challans and the payment receipts have been countersigned by the
present applicant. He invites my attention to a few of the receipts
which specifically stand as payment of cash and are signed by the
present applicant. He submits that without the counter signature of the
present applicant, the entire amount in cash would not have been
possible to be withdrawn and therefore, he is one of the prime accused
person in the entire offence. He does not stand in party with the other
accused persons and hence, his application cannot be treated in par
with the other accused persons. He submits that though the
investigation has completed, the present applicant did not disclose as
3 of 5
RB43BA946-26
to who has withdrawn the amount in cash and, therefore, that portion
of investigation has not been concluded. Taking into consideration that
the involvement of the present applicant in every withdrawal by way
of cash from the credit society, the present application deserves to be
dismissed.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates appearing for the parties.
6. Undisputed part as far as the present applicant is concerned is
that, he was an employee of the Credit Society and was working as a
Passing Officer. The role attributed has also not been disputed by the
present applicant. The allegations made are specific and pertinent
against the present applicant. However, the fact remains that whether
the applicant had intention or knowledge of the entire offence, that
needs to be proved at the time of trial. The applicant was working as
an Assistant Manager and Passing Officer in the Society and, therefore,
it is necessary that the prosecution, at the time of trial, will have to
prove that the applicant was executing or implementing the
instructions received from his senior officers and also the complicity in
the alleged offence. At this stage, I am of the considered view that his
continued incarceration would not be warranted or in other words, he
is entitled to be released on bail taking into consideration the fact that
out of 33 accused persons, all other accused persons except one apart
from the present applicant have been released on bail and more
particularly, that those persons who have been released on bail are
4 of 5
RB43BA946-26
senior officials and had higher accountability, such as Chairman,
Directors, Cashier. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view
that the present applicant can also be released on bail. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) The Applicant, in connection with Crime No. 640 of 2025
registered with Hingoli City Police Station, District- Hingoli,
for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465,
420, 409, 408,120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3, 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors Act, 1999, be released on bail on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
with one or two sureties of the like amount.
(iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as
and when required by the Investigating Officer.
(iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses
and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any
manner.
( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan
5 of 5
Checking your session…