1 BA1461.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1461 OF 2026 1. Suraj Macchindra Mahadik, Age : 34 years, Occu. Agriculture, 2. Kiran Macchindra Mahadik, Age : 37 years, Occu. Agriculture, Both R/o. Ukkadgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, District Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar), (The applicants are in jail). ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent …….. Mr. V. D. Hon, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Shubham Kote, Advocate i/b Mr. A. V. Hon – Advocate for the Applicants Mr. S. V. Hange – APP for the State …….. CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : - 1. The Applicants, Suraj Macchindra Mahadik and Kiran Macchindra Mahadik, seek regular bail in Crime No. 532 of 2024, registered with Parner Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [For short “IPC”], and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2 BA1461.2026.odt 1999 [In short “MPID”]. Both Applicants were arrested on 5th April 2025. Their bail application was rejected by the learned Special Court on 24th June 2026. 2. The informant had deposited Rs. 9.00 lakh with Raje Shivaji Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit. According to the prosecution, the society failed to repay deposits on maturity. An examination of its records disclosed irregular loan transactions and alleged diversion of funds, causing an overall loss said to be Rs. 66,69,03,228/-. The Applicants were subsequently named in a supplementary charge-sheet. The allegation specific to each of them is that a loan of Rs. 50.00 lakh was sanctioned in his name for agricultural improvement, but the amount was directed to the account of Raichand Kisan Wakhare instead of being used for that purpose. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants submits that they are borrowers, and neither members of the Managing Committee nor persons ARE conducting the society’s affairs. He relies on a registered mortgage and a valuation report concerning their property. He submits that the investigation is complete, the material is documentary, and the applicants have remained in custody since 5th April 2025. Reliance is also placed on the bail granted to co-accused Raju Baburao Katore by this Court and to Popat Bolhaji Dhawle and another co-accused by the Supreme Court. He further refers to the death of Kiran’s two children in 3 BA1461.2026.odt an accident and submits that Kiran complied with the conditions of temporary bail granted thereafter. 4. Learned APP opposes the Application. The prosecution alleges a wider arrangement in which loans were sanctioned in the names of connected persons and society funds were diverted. It is submitted that the existence of a mortgage does not explain the transfer of the loan proceeds to a third party, and that the scale of the alleged loss to depositors, the Applicants’ participation and the possibility of interference with witnesses weigh against bail. 5. The accusation is serious. The Applicants cannot answer the allegation of diversion merely by showing that property was mortgaged: whether the security was adequate and genuine, whether the transfer instructions were given by them, and whether they acted in concert with those managing the society require examination at trial. Equally, the material presently identified against these Applicants must be assessed according to their own alleged acts. The charge-sheet passage concerning them describes them as borrowers and identifies the alleged transfer of 50 lakh in each case. The order under challenge repeatedly ₹ proceeds on the footing that they were Directors of the Society, without identifying material establishing that position. That distinction matters when considering their role; it does not foreclose the prosecution from proving common intention or participation in the alleged transactions. 4 BA1461.2026.odt 6. The applicability of Section 3 of the MPID Act to the Applicants, and the ingredients of the IPC offences, must be decided on the evidence. No final finding on those questions is necessary for bail. Nor does bail granted to another accused create an automatic entitlement: the respective roles and the circumstances of those orders must be considered. The orders placed on record nevertheless show that other accused in this crime have been released, including Popat Dhawle by the Supreme Court on 30th April 2026, after consideration of his incarceration and the bail granted to a similarly situated co-accused. 7. The investigation against these Applicants is complete and the Charge-sheet has been filed. The Special Court’s order records 36 prosecution witnesses and none examined as of 24th June 2026. The Applicants have been in custody for approximately seventeen months. The evidence concerning the loan sanctions, mortgage and transfers is substantially documentary and has been collected. No specific instance of an attempt by either applicants to influence a witness has been brought to notice. In these circumstances, their continued detention pending a trial, involving numerous witnesses is unwarranted. The prosecution’s concerns can be addressed by conditions securing their attendance and protecting the evidence. Kiran’s family circumstances are noted, although the decision rests principally on the applicants’ 5 BA1461.2026.odt individual roles, the stage of the case and the length of custody. Hence, I pass the following order: - ORDER (i) The Application is allowed. (ii) Applicants, Suraj Macchindra Mahadik and Kiran Macchindra Mahadik, shall each be released on bail in Crime No. 532 of 2024, registered with Parner Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, on executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Court. (iii) The Applicants shall attend every date of trial, unless exempted by the Special Court. (iv) The Applicants shall furnish their current residential addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and the Special Court. (v) The Applicants shall promptly report any change in their residential address or mobile number to the Investigating Officer and the Special Court. (vi) The Applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten or induce any prosecution witness. (vii) The Applicants shall not tamper with the society's records or any other evidence. 6 BA1461.2026.odt (viii) The Applicants shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Special Court. (ix) The Applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Special Court. 8. Breach of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. 9. Nothing observed in this order shall influence the trial, which shall proceed independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 16:02:48