GAJANAN PRABHAKARRAO UDAWANT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
ABA/1327/2025 · 2026-09-09
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4549 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4549 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
994-ABA-1327-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 994 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1327 OF 2025 Gajanan Prabhakarrao Udawant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ….. Mr. Patil Dhananjay Shrikant, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent – State. …..
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 P. C. :
1. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0451 of 2026 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
2. The First Information Report alleges misappropriation of the funds of Rajasthan Multi State Cooperative Society, Parali, Vaijnath, District Beed. The allegation is against the office bearers so also the employees including the manager of the society.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that similarly placed accused liberty has been protected by this Court by allowing their pre-arrest bail application. He therefore seeks similar order on parity.
4. Learned APP opposes grant of any protection to the applicant. Kiran Kawre
994-ABA-1327-2025.odt However, he is unable to dispute the fact that similarly placed accused’s liberty has been protected by this Court.
5. In view of the fact that similarly placed accused i.e., the other branch managers of the society, are granted pre-arrest bail, and considering the nature of the allegations against the present applicant, this Court find no justification not to apply parity. The liberty of the applicant was protected by
order dated 5 August 2025.
6. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. There is no abuse of the liberty granted by this Court on the part of the applicant. This Court therefore finds no reason not to confirm the bail. The application stands allowed in terms of interim relief. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R (i) The application is allowed by confirming interim order dated 5 August 2025.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) Kiran Kawre