41.IA.1648.2025.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 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 3 of 3 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07 20:32:38 +0530