ANIL SHIVAJIRAO BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                              41.IA.1648.2025.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1648 OF 2025
                                       IN
                        BAIL APPLICATION NO. 653 OF 2023

       Anil Shivajirao Bhosale                           .. Applicant
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra                              .. Respondent
                                 ....................
        Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Mr. Chandansingh Shekhawat and Ms.
         Samruddhi Bendbhar, Advocates i/by Parinam Law Associates for
         Applicant.
        Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent – State.
        PI – Mr. Kailas Kare, EOW Pune City present.
                                   ......…...........
                                  CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                  DATE         : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.        Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicant and

       Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent – State.


       2.        The present Interim Application seeks modification of

       condition clause (b) as contained in the bail order dated 19.08.2024

       which is one of the bail conditions set out at page No.42 of the

       Application.


       3.        Learned Advocate for Applicant persuades me to consider the

       submissions noted in paragraph No.6 of the bail order at page No.18. I

       have perused the same. Prima facie, what is argued before me is that

       notwithstanding the fact that a humongous amount has been recovered

                                                                          1 of 3
                                                           41.IA.1648.2025.doc


by way of attachment of substantial property, details of which are all

stated in the said paragraph, the concerned bail condition be therefore

relaxed.


4.          Applicant hails from Pune. I have considered the objections

raised by Ms. Newton, who draws my attention to the Affidavit-in-reply

dated 05.02.2026, copy of which is appended at page No.105. She has

argued that there is every likelihood that in view of the Applicant being

a Director of the concerned Co-operative Bank and being an ex-

legislator, there is every possibility that he will interfere with the

investigation and the possibility of his threatening or tampering with

witnesses and evidence. She would vehemently submit that since the

Applicant is the protagonist in the present matter, it would be

appropriate to continue the said bail condition which was imposed by

the Court by a well reasoned order in the interest of justice.


5.          I have considered the request made by the Applicant and

also the submissions made by Ms. Newton in support of her objections

to the present Interim Application.


6.          Prima facie, it is seen that this Court while granting bail has

considered the entire outlay of the funds which have been alleged to

have been transferred or diverted or classified as NP accounts by the

Applicant     in extensive detail. This Court has also considered the

property belonging to the Applicant having been attached as also the


                                                                       2 of 3
                                                                         41.IA.1648.2025.doc


       one time settlement which was negotiated with the concerned account

       holders, who may be the primary Complainants. Having perused the

       said submissions recorded in paragraph No.6, in my opinion, at this

       stage, when the Applicant has sought relaxation of the bail condition

       (b) and considering the fact that the Applicant is hailing from Pune

       itself, I am inclined to consider the request made by the Applicant.


       7.                   Needless to state that if any of the apprehensions expressed

       by Ms. Newton, the learned Prosecutor as stated in the Affidavit-in-

       Reply dated 05.02.2026 are found to be true, the prosecution would be

       at liberty to immediately seek revocation of the aforesaid modification

       of the bail condition by giving appropriate and cogent reasons and

       placing on record evidence to that effect.


       8.                   In view of the above, clause (b) in the bail order dated

       19.08.2024 stands deleted and replaced as under:-


                            “Applicant is directed to report to Shivaji Nagar Police
                            Station, once every month on the first Sunday of the month
                            between 08:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in the morning.


       9.                   Interim Application is allowed and disposed in the above

       terms.

                                                           [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
                  Digitally signed
                  by AJAY
                  TRAMBAK
       AJAY       UGALMUGALE
       TRAMBAK
       UGALMUGALE Date:
                  2026.09.07
                  20:32:38
                  +0530




                                                                                     3 of 3