911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1368 OF 2026 Kiran Jaiprakash Kuwar …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Pralhad Dnyanoba Bachate a/w Sanket Sonawane, Padmanabh Sangale & Onkar A. Wable, for the Applicant. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, Addl. PP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. S. S. Hiray, GP & PP, present through Video Conferencing. Mr. Sadanand Date, DGP, Maharashtra State, present through Video Conferencing. Mr. Sachindra Pratap Singh, Commissioner, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, present through Video Conferencing. Mr. Sandeep Karnik, Commissioner of Police, Nashik, present through Video Conferencing. ACP Sandeep Mitke, Crime Branch, Nashik City, present. DySP Jyoti Karandikar, EOW, present. PI Dattatray Chaudhari, EOW, Nashik Rural, present. Mr. Mohinuddin Tashildar, Deputy Secretary, School Education Department, present. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026 PC:- 1. This Court passed the following Order on 22nd September 2026: “1. This is a very serious matter concerning a scam involving Shalarth IDs, whereby bogus teachers were shown to have been appointed or although they were appointed subsequently their appointments have been shown from earlier dates. In many cases the appointments were shown about 10 years earlier than Page 1 Arjun ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.09.24 20:50:23 +0530 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC the actual appointment and salaries were paid to them. 2. Approximately, more than 1,000 teaching and non-teaching staff are shown to have been appointed, and date of their appointments shown are almost 10 years old. However, in the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra, the proposals submitted by the heads of the respective education institutions are not traceable. In most of the cases, there is no record of the issuance of advertisements or of applications submitted by the candidates pursuant thereto for appointment. There is also no record of interviews having been conducted or of appointments made of such teachers, and yet approvals have been directly granted. Even the orders granting such approval do not mention these detail. 3. Thus, the magnitude of the scam is substantial, where more than 1,000 teaching/non-teaching staff, who are shown to be appointed about 10 years ago and, in fact, there is no record of their appointments have been paid salary. Despite this, the investigation is being conducted in defective manner. 4. The Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.1368 of 2026 filed by Dr. Kiran Jaiprakash Kuwar, who was the Education Officer at the relevant, shows that Mr. Mahendra Ramdas Patil was appointed with effect from 15th June 2016 and that salary was paid to him pursuant to the approval order dated 20th February 2024 passed by the Applicant. The Applicant was the Education Officer at the relevant time. The said approval was granted in respect to the proposal dated 27th September 2021 submitted by the Headmaster of M. F. Taral Vidyalay and M. R. Mahajan Jr. College, Anturli, Taluka Muktainagar, District Jalgaon. The file of said proposal maintained by the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra is not traceable. 5. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the files of all these approximately more than 1,000 teaching/non- Page 2 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC teaching staff who have been paid salary in this manner are not traceable in the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra. 6. In view of this position, the statement of the Headmaster of said M. F. Taral Vidyalay and M. R. Mahajan Jr. College, Anturli, Taluka Muktainagar, District Jalgaon, recorded by Police on 3rd July 2025, is very significant. It shows that what was sought was the date and details of the approval order and the details of the Shalarth ID Orders. In fact, what is required to be asked to him and documents to be sought are regarding the proposal on the basis of which the approval was granted including details regarding the date of issuance of advertisement, the approval obtained by the School Authorities for such advertisement, the number of candidates who applied to the school pursuant to such advertisement, the dates on which the interviews of such candidates were conducted, marks obtained by each candidate in such interviews, the details of selection process of the candidates declared successful and their appointment letters. The relevant information also shall contain details regarding the staffing pattern, the manner in which the vacancy arose, the eligibility of the candidates, their applications, the selection process and the appointments orders. 7. It is unfortunate that, despite the scam being of a huge magnitude and involving crores of rupees, prima facie the State of Maharashtra is not conducting the investigation properly. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, states that the records of almost all these 1,000 appointments are not traceable in the Education Department. 9. ACP Sandeep Mitke, who is present in Court, states that he has been appointed as Investigating Officer only on 13th August 2026 and prior to his appointment, the Investigating Officers had been changed from time to time. Page 3 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC 10. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, the Secretary, Education Department and Commissioner for Education shall appear through Video Conferencing. 11. Stand over to 23rd September 2026 at 03:00 pm. 12. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date.” (Emphasis added) 2. Pursuant to above Order, today, Mr. Sadanand Date, DGP, State of Maharashtra and Mr. Sachindra Pratap Singh, Commissioner of Education, are present through Video Conferencing. 3. Mr. Date, DGP, states that effective steps will be taken to supervise the investigation by very senior officers of the Police Department and looking to the gravity of the offence effective and elaborate investigation will be carried out under the supervision of the higher officials. 4. Mr. Hiray, learned Public Prosecutor who appears through Video Conferencing also submitted that effective steps will be taken for conducting thorough investigation. He submits that apart from the public money involved in the crime quality of education is also affected if such type of teachers/non-teaching staff is appointed. Page 4 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC 5. Mr. Sachindra Pratap Singh, Education Commissioner gave information regarding steps taken by the State of Maharashtra so that such appointment of teachers/non-teaching staff by Schools/Educational Institutions is completely stopped. 6. Heard Mr. Bachate, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional PP, for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra as regards the merits of the Anticipatory Bail Application No.1368 of 2026. 7. By the said Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.164 of 2025 registered with Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 340(2), 338, 336(3), 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). 8. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of the statement of Mr. Bhausaheb Bhikanrao Chavan, Deputy Director of Education. 9. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Addl. PP, for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra, states that the subject FIR is concerning Page 5 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC appointments of about 96 teaching/non-teaching staff in various Schools/Educational Institutions which are in the jurisdiction of Nashik Division. There are about 125 Accused. Learned Additional PP submits that, in fact during investigation role of the First Informant who is the Deputy Director of Education is also seen. 10. As per the prosecution case relevant for deciding this Anticipatory Bail Application, the appointments of Mr. Mahendra Ramdas Patil (Clerk) and of Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane (Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan (Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke (Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak), who are shown to have been appointed from 15th June 2016/1st July 2015/1st July 2015 and 1st June 2016 respectively, were never appointed on those dates and inspite of this a proposal has been sent on 27th September 2021 with respect to the appointment of Mr. Mahendra Ramdas Patil and on 10th December 2021 with respect to the appointments of said Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane, Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke, by the Headmaster of M. F. Taral Vidyalaya and M. R. Mahajan Jr. College, Anturli, Taluka Muktainagar, District Jalgaon. By showing these appointments Page 6 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC from those dates, approval has been granted by the Applicant to these appointments by approval dated 20th February 2024 bearing Outward No.972 of 2024 for appointment of said Mahendra Ramdas Patil as Clerk (Page 331) and also granted approval to appointment of said Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane (Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan (Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke (Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak) by approval dated 20th February 2024 bearing same Outward No.972 of 2024 (Page 325). On the basis of said approval orders, Shalarth IDs have been created and the payment was made to these teachers/non-teaching staff from the said dates of appointments. 11. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying on the letter dated 9th February 2026 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, submitted that the record of these teachers/non-teaching staff is not available in the office of the Education Officer. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Bachate, learned Counsel, submits that the Applicant has issued only one order of granting an Page 7 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC approval dated 20th February 2024 (Page 331) which is in favour of Mr. Mahendra Ramdas Patil as Clerk and the approval is given from 15th June 2016. He submitted that the approval order allegedly signed by the present Applicant dated 20th February 2024 approving the appointment of Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane (w.e.f. 1st July 2015), Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan (w.e.f. 1st July 2015) and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke (w.e.f. 1st June 2015), as Assistant Teachers/Shikshan Sevaks (Page 325) is forged and fabricated approval order with which the Applicant is not at all concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the anticipatory bail application be allowed. 13. The record shows that the Applicant is Deputy Education Inspector in the Office of the Deputy Director of Education from 25th August 2020 till 3rd October 2024. The Applicant was holding additional charge as Education Officer (Secondary) (Additional Charge), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon for four months and during said period the said approval dated 20th February 2024 was given. 14. It is significant to note that approval order dated 20th Page 8 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC February 2024 (Page 331) which according to learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant is genuine order, although at Serial No.13, makes reference to the Office Sanction Note, however, the same is kept blank. Said Page Nos.331 and 332 are scanned and reproduced herein below for ready reference: Page 9 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC Page 10 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC 15. As already noted, the proposal for the approval of said Mr. Mahendra Ramdas Patil as also the papers concerning the appointment of about more than 1,000 teaching/non-teaching staff are not traceable in the relevant Education Department. 16. In this background of the matter, it is significant to note that, as it has been observed in the Order dated 22nd September 2026 passed by this Court that the papers are not traceable of the Page 11 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC proposal, learned Counsel for the Applicant tenders one Office Note dated 11th March 2024. He submits that the Applicant has procured this Office Note from the Office of the Deputy Director of Education. It is surprising and shocking that when this matter was argued yesterday these documents were not produced. These documents are produced for the first time today after this Court passed Order dated 23rd September 2026 which is set out herein above. 17. Perusal of the said Office Note dated 11th March 2024 shows that the same has not been approved. On many pages blanks are to be founds in the documents annexed to the said note. There is no Outward Number and no signatures appears. There is nothing to show that said Office Note is approved. 18. The said Office Note along with the annexures is taken on record and marked “X” for identification and the same is paginated from Pages 1 to 59. Few of the documents (Pages 1 to 59) showing that, prima facie, these documents are forged and fabricated are set out herein below: i. Copy of letter dated 6th March 2024 issued by the present Page 12 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC Applicant addressed to the Deputy Director of Education (Page 9 of compilation produced by the Applicant) is scanned and reproduced herein below: Page 13 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC The same clearly shows that although the said letter is dated 6th March 2024, the same is received on 11th March 2023. ii. There is certificate (Page 10) given by the present Applicant for inclusion of the name of said Mahendra Ramdas Patil in the Shalarth ID Pranali. The said certificate is undated. The same is scanned and reproduced herein below: Page 14 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC Page 15 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC iii. The proposal forwarded by the concerned School for inclusion of name of said Mahendra Ramdas Patil in Shalarth ID Pranali (Page 13) is also undated. There is alteration. A scanned copy of the same is reproduced herein below: Page 16 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC iv. Although in the approval order dated 20th February 2024 admittedly issued by the Applicant honorarium/remuneration of Rs.25,000/- per month of said Mahendra Ramdas Patil has been shown in the alleged proposal of the School (Pages 16-17) the same is shown as Rs.8,000/- per month. The above are few examples of the fraudulent nature of documents. 19. It is very clear that in view of the Order dated 22nd September 2026 passed by this Court, the Applicant is creating fabricated documents for the purpose of making submission that documents mentioned in the said order are available. 20. The Supreme Court in the decision of State Rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma 1, has held that the custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e. Section 482 of BNSS. The effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also 1 (1997) 7 SCC 187 Page 17 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. The said observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case. Thus, for effective interrogation of a suspected person in a serious case, custodial interrogation is necessary. 21. It is settled legal position that grant of anticipatory bail is very extraordinary remedy. The said power is not to be used in regular course. 22. As noted earlier, the offence is very serious where large number of teaching/non-teaching staff have been shown to be appointed from the year 2015-16 and the arrears of salaries running into crores of rupees have been paid to them, however, there is no record available with the Education Department on the basis of which the approvals are granted. 23. It is even the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant that approval order issued in favour of Mrs. Priya Dipak Mhasane, Page 18 Arjun 911-ABA-1368-2026.DOC Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Mahajan and Mrs. Priyanka Vishwanath Salunke (Pages 325-326) is a fabricated order. 24. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 25. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. x[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 19 Arjun