Bombay High Court

ASHOK DNYANOBA TUPEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that accused persons may operate their private bank accounts subject to an undertaking to re‑deposit any withdrawn amounts, and the condition of a solvent surety is invalid and therefore quashed.

Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge had allowed the accused applicants to operate their frozen private bank accounts on the condition that they provide a solvent surety equal to the alleged misappropriated amount. The applicants contended that the accounts were unrelated to the crime and offered an undertaking to re‑deposit any withdrawn sums if directed by the trial court. The State opposed the relief, noting that a large sum had already been withdrawn after the accounts were defrosted and that the investigation was ongoing. The High Court examined whether the condition of a surety was necessary when the applicants had voluntarily undertaken to restore any withdrawn funds. It held that the undertaking was sufficient to protect the trial court’s interests and that the surety requirement was excessive. Consequently, the court allowed the revision applications, permitted the operation of the private accounts, ordered re‑depositation upon direction, and quashed the surety condition, directing attachment of property for non‑compliance.

Issues considered

Whether frozen private bank accounts of accused persons may be operated pending trial.
Whether an undertaking to re‑deposit withdrawn amounts suffices in lieu of a solvent surety.
Whether the condition of a surety can be quashed when the accused have offered an undertaking.

Subjects

bank account freezing
criminal revision
surety
property attachment
undertaking
misappropriation
investigation
trial court

Judgment

902- Revn 293 of 2026.doc

Tikam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 293 OF 2026
VAISHALI
ANIL Aparna Ashok Shinde ...Applicant
TIKAM
Vs.
Digitally signed The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.09.08 WITH
11:17:55 +0530
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 294 OF 2026

Ashok Dnyanoba Tupe ...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 295 OF 2026

Vasant Khashaba Chavan ...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2026

Ashok Tukaram Shinde ...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 298 OF 2026

Shivaji Ramchandra Varude ...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2026

Baban Eknath Kate ...Applicant
Vs.

Page 1 of 4
902- Revn 293 of 2026.doc

Tikam

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 2026

Pandurang Vitthal Ghadge ...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and Ors. ...Respondents

_______________________________________________________________

Mr. Amogh Singh i/by Shyam Birje, Advocate for Applicants in all matters.
Mr. Sameer Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Sumedh Modak a/w. Shekar Mane a/w Mr. Rahul Vijaymane a/w.
Rutik Kashid , Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4
Mr. Veerdhaval Kakade i/by Prabhakar Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent
No.3.
API V.D. Jadhav, EOW -3 Navi Mumbai.

_________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants, learned APP and

learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and Respondent No.3.

2. The challenge in these applications is to the impugned order

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Navi Mumbai dated 02/02/2026

whereby the Learned Judge has permitted the Applicants to operate bank

accounts but directed to execute solvent surety equivalent to the alleged

amount.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that

Page 2 of 4
902- Revn 293 of 2026.doc

Tikam

Applicants' accounts are freezed in connection with the crime. The said

bank accounts have no connection with the crime. These bank accounts

are private accounts of the Applicants. Applicants have filed undertaking,

stating that if required, Applicants will re-deposit the amounts, which are

withdrawn from the said bank accounts and requested to allow the

Applications.

4. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 has strongly

objected to allow the applications on the ground that offence is registered

against the Applicants and co-accused for misappropriation of the amount

of Shivkrupa Sahakari Pathpedhi Ltd. Learned counsel further submitted

that as on 05/09/2024, the total balance in the frozen account was

Rs.1,77,60,341.91. It was further submitted that after the accounts were

de-frozen pursuant to the order dated 13/09/2024 passed by the

Additional Registrar, the Applicant withdrawn Rs.1,43,85,767/- from the

said accounts. Hence, requested to reject the applications. He further

submitted that the investigation is going on/ in progress.

5. I have heard all learned counsel. The Applicants and

Respondents both have challenged the impugned order. Admittedly, the

bank accounts frozen by the Investigating Officer are private bank

accounts of the Applicants. The Applicants have filed an undertaking

stating that the amount withdrawn from the bank accounts shall be re-

Page 3 of 4
902- Revn 293 of 2026.doc

Tikam

deposited if the Trial Court finds that the said amount is required to be re-

deposited. The fraud amount is Rs.6,83,52,917/-. As Applicants have filed

an undertaking to re-deposit the amount withdrawn by them, the

Applicants cannot be denied to operate their private bank accounts and in

view of the undertaking of the Applicants, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Applications are allowed.

(ii) The Applicants are permitted to operate the private bank

accounts.

(iii) The Applicants shall re-deposit the amount withdrawn by the

Applicants in accordance with their undertaking if directed by the Trial

Court.

(iv) The Applicants are also be directed that if they fail to re-

deposit the amount as directed by the Trial Court, their property shall be

liable to be attached.

(v) The condition requiring solvent surety is hereby quashed and

set aside.

(vi) Revision Applications are accordingly disposed of.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…