IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2280 OF 2025 Kishor Vinaykrao Bharde VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Mr. S. J. Salunke h/f Mr. R. A. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for respondent-State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0219 of 2025 registered with Beed City Police Station, Dist. Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The First Information Report (FIR) indicates that the applicant is the revaluer and re-assessor of gold pledged by bank customers. There is allegation that in respect of 10 customers fake gold ornaments were kept by way of mortgage with the bank. This was formed when the valuation of the said gold was done again. There is allegation that there is misappropriation to the extent of Rs. 1,36,25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant 917-ABA-2280-2025.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:38693 was the re-assessor of the gold ornaments. However, in order to verify the said gold ornaments before their removal from the locker, a notice was required to be given to the applicant. Unless notice is given, applicant cannot be held responsible for change if any in the gold ornaments. 4. Learned APP opposed the application by contending that having regard to the responsibility of the applicant to assess/valuate the gold, he has failed in discharging the said duty and, therefore, he is in collusion with the co-accused as committed misappropriation to the extent of more than one crore. 5. During the course of hearing, a specific query was made to learned APP to point out as to whether any notice was given to the applicant before re-verification of the gold ornaments. On written instructions from the Investigating Officer, it is specifically stated that no such notice was given to the applicant. Even though such notice was not there, there has to be evidence to show that atleast in the presence of Panch Witnesses, record or sealed envelope contending the ornaments are open. The investigation papers do not indicate any such evidence. Having regard to the said facts, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that this could be a case of false implication of the applicant in the crime. 917-ABA-2280-2025.odt 2 of 3 6. In any case in order to attribute any offence against the applicant, it was absolutely necessary for the bank to issue notice to the applicant and in case after service of such notice, applicant remains absent, then it was open for the bank to verify the ornaments in its absence. This Court finds no reason not to protect liberty of the applicant. Hence, the order :- ORDER (i) Application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No. 0219 of 2025 registered with Beed City Police Station, Dist. Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by Investigating Officer. (iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) B. S. Joshi 917-ABA-2280-2025.odt 3 of 3