- 1 - acb24.20.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 30 APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 24 OF 2020 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1001 OF 2023 IN ACB/24/2020 The State of Maharashtra ….Applicant VERSUS Chandrakant Hari Badhe …..Respondent Mr A. R. Kale, APP for the Applicant/State. Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by order dated 29.11.2019 in Criminal Bail Application No. 853/2019 in connection with Crime No. 371/2012 registered with Sangwi police station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. At the outset, Respondent apprehended arrest in connection with aforestated crime wherein it was alleged that being the Chairman of the society, along with the other Directors, he mis- - 2 - acb24.20.odt appropriated huge funds more particularly, funds from branch at Sangwi. 3. Earlier, he moved application before the Sessions Court for grant of pre-arrest bail which came to be rejected. His application before this Court was also unsuccessful as this Court in Criminal Application No. 4182/2013 by recording reasons rejected the application on 12.09.2013. It is thereafter another application was moved before the Sessions Court in the year 2019. Before the Sessions Court, prosecution raised objection with regard to jurisdiction so also maintainability of the application in view of the fact that High Court has rejected the previous bail application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the said objections and hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order. 4. Learned APP at the outset submits that it was not open for the Sessions Court to again entertain the application for pre-arrest bail once it was rejected on merit by the High Court by order dated 12.09.2013. In order to support his submission, he drew attention of the Court to the observations made by this Court against the Respondent. According to him, the Respondent, after withdrawing - 3 - acb24.20.odt the application filed before Court at Pune, moved application before the Court at Jalgaon and that fact itself creates doubt about the manner in which the order in question came to be passed. In order to support his submission, he placed reliance on the allegations in the First Information Report and the observations made by this Court in order dated 12.09.2013. According to him, since the Respondent has not cooperated in the investigation and for the purpose of recovery his custodial interrogation is necessary. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the application. He drew attention of the Court to the observations made by the Sessions Court in the impugned order. According to him, the said Court has rightly entertained the application having regard to the change in circumstances which is in the form of an enquiry being conducted under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. According to him, the said enquiry came to be conducted after order passed by the High Court. He drew attention of the Court to the observations wherein there is mention about their being no mis-appropriation and cash transactions of the concerned branch were accounted for. As far as grievance made by learned Prosecutor about jurisdiction, he drew attention of the Court to the - 4 - acb24.20.odt observations made by Sessions Court in paragraph Nos. 11 and 13 of the order. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that offence in connection with crime No. 371/2012 came to be registered with Sangwi Police Station, District Pune, and application seeking pre-arrest bail came to be filed before the Sessions Court, which came to be rejected and consequently, Criminal Application No. 4182/2013 filed before this Court was also rejected by order dated 12.09.2013. Needless to say that unless there is change in the circumstances, it was not open for the Sessions Court to entertain any application filed by the Applicant/Respondent herein. It is pertinent to note that the application came to be filed before the Sessions Court after six years of rejection of application by this Court. It is not in dispute that after rejection of bail by this Court, enquiry was directed under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The Enquiry Officer has considered the objection of the Special Auditor and has opined that cash amount or other expenses which were allegedly said to have caused financial loss do not hold water. It is further opined by the Enquiry Officer that cash transactions were accounted for. Further, there is no dispute about the fact that the enquiry report has not - 5 - acb24.20.odt been taken exception to till date and it has attained finality. If such material change in circumstances has taken place, it was not open for the Sessions Court to ignore the same. This Court finds the circumstances taken into consideration by the Sessions Court for entertaining the application to be fully justified. 7. Insofar as issue with regard to jurisdiction is concerned, paragraph No. 11 of the said order is self-explanatory. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraph is reproduced as under :- “11. The State raised preliminary objection as to Jurisdiction of this Court to try and entertain of this application. The learned DGP argued that as the offence was registered at Sangavi Police Station, Pune, this Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application and on that count alone, the application was liable to be dismissed and interim relief vacated forthwith. As stated earlier, the investigation of presence offence as well as connected C.R. No.90/2010 registered with Varangaon Police Station, Tal Bhuswal, Dist. Jalgaon, were ordered to be entrusted to one and same Investigating Officer as per directions in Cri.W.P. 1072/2012. It appears that accordingly the investigation was handed over to and officer from Jalgaon working under the controls of State, CID. This is not in dispute. The Applicant had thereafter - 6 - acb24.20.odt withdrawn Cri.Bail Appln. 3787/2012 filed in the Sessions Court at Pune, in connection with the present offence and had preferred Cri. Bail Appl. No. 221/2013 in the Sessions Court at Jalgaon i.e. present Court. In that application, initially interim protection was granted, but the application was finally dismissed on 22-07-2013. The Applicant unsuccessfully tried to secure bail, in Cri. Bail Application No. 4182/2013 even at the Hon’ble High Court. This is also undisputed. It therefore shows that upon transfer of investigation to the investigating officer at Jalgaon, this Court had entertain bail application concerning Cr.No. 371/2012 though it was registered at Sangvi Police Station, Pune. It does not appear from the initial orders that jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such application was ever challenged. Rather it appears that the application was considered on merits and was dismissed on its own merits and not on the point of jurisdiction. It is also seen that thereafter anticipatory bail application No. 4182/2013 was entertained by the Aurangabad Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and not the Principal Bench, which ordinarily exercises jurisdiction over Pune Court. Thus, it seems that the investigation being entrusted to an Officer at Jalgaon and it being conducted also in connection with Cr. No. 90/2010, the Court having jurisdiction at Jalgaon and consequentially the superior Court exercising jurisdiction over Jalgaon District entertain application/petition concerning the - 7 - acb24.20.odt same. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the objection so raised. 8. As far as consideration of application in merit is concerned, observations made in paragraph No. 12 of the order take into account all relevant facts which have occurred post rejection of bail application by this Court. Apart from this, it would be relevant to take note of observations made by Sessions Court in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the order which read thus :- “14. As far as the pendency of similar such offences is concerned, it was reported by the Applicant that Cr. No. 123/2013 registered at Varangaon Police Station appears to have been inadvertently mentioned twice in the reply and it ought to have been Cr.No. 125/2013. Cr.No. 125/2013 was registered at Varangaon Police Station under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. it appears that upon investigation the police filed final report which was numbered as RCC No. 433/2013 in which ‘B’ Summary was filed by the police. The learned Magistrate Court No. 1, Bhusawal, in its order recorded the fact that the complainant therein was himself indebted to the Society and had defaulted the loan repayment. Depsite issuance of repeated notices, he did not appear before the Court. Therefore, the learned JMFC upon considering the material on record pleased to accept ‘B’ Summary report and discharge the accused therein, which included the - 8 - acb24.20.odt Applicant who was arrayed as accused no. 2. Offence bearing Cr. No. 1/2012 and 2/12 at Palghar Police Station were also registered in pursuance to directions u/sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. the amounts concerning the complainant therein namely Arun Sindekar and Kunda Sindekar was seized from the Palghar Branch of the Society and produced before the Court at Palghar. Thus, to that extend the amount has been secured. As far as Cr. No.90/2010 registered at Varangaon Police Station is concerned, the Applicant has been granted protection by the Ho’ble High Court in Cri. Appl. No. 4567/2010 states that it shall remain enforce till final report and that the undertaking referred in para 5 of the order dated 04-11- 2010 shall also continue to operate. The undertaking was to an effect that the Applicants shall not alternate their properties to third party. Thus, it seems that even the course of action form recovery of amount if any in pursuance of MPID Act has been protected. 15. The Prosecution has opposed enlargement on bail, on further count that the State intends to appoint a Chartered Accountant to conduct forensic Audit. This is certainly a welcome sign as it will help to clear the maze of allegedly cyclical and fraudulent monetary transactions. But at the same time, it cannot be denied that this step is bit belated and for that personal liberty of the Applicant cannot be jeoparadized. Admittedly, the Prosecution is handy with the documentary evidence and the Forensic - 9 - acb24.20.odt Auditor so appointed would rather require the documents to establish money tray instead of the office bearers of the society in person. Hence this count also does not appeal. 9. Apart from the fact that the Sessions Court has taken into consideration all the relevant facts which were required to be appreciated for the purpose of grant of pre-arrest bail, it is pertinent to note that the said order came to be passed on 29.11.2019. Charge-sheet came to be filed on 08.04.2022. This Court, in the year 2026, does not find it appropriate to cause interference in the said order. Consequently, application stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb