1 37 BA 1138.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1138/2026 (Padmakar Ramkrushna Golait Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.T. Chavhan, Advocate for applicant. Ms. P. C. Bawankule, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 24/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 391/2026 registered with Police Station Awdhutwadi, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999, Sections 3, 5, 21, 23, 25 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant lodged the First Information Report (“F.I.R.”) alleging that, between December 2024 and January 2025, he invested a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- in Bhuankur Agro Pvt. Ltd. The informant has also named several other 2 37 BA 1138.26.odt investors who had invested substantial amounts in the said company. He further stated that, in the month of June, one person named Shukla circulated a message on WhatsApp requesting the investors to withdraw their investments from Bhuankur Agro Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the informant contacted the company’s advisor, namely, Devendra Rapatiwar, who assured him that Shukla was attempting to blackmail the company and extract money from it. Acting upon the said assurance, the informant continued to keep his investment with the company. It is further alleged that the persons responsible for the affairs of Bhuankur Agro Pvt. Ltd., namely, Arvind Chandrakant Chaudhary, Ravindra Sadashiv Kanaje (Patil), Padmakar Golait, Deepak Ghanwat, Sandeep Ghose and Megha Sandeep Ghose, were involved in the investment scheme. Subsequently, when the promised pay-outs stopped and the investors sought withdrawal of their investments, the assurances given by the persons associated with the company were not fulfilled. The informant, therefore, alleged that he and the other investors had been subjected to a large-scale financial fraud involving an amount of approximately Rs. 3,83,50,000/-, and accordingly lodged the present F.I.R. 3 37 BA 1138.26.odt 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that, in fact, the Applicant himself is a victim. A company by the name of Bhunkur Agro Ltd. (“said company”) had floated certain investment schemes, and the Proprietor, Signatory and Managing Director of the said company is co-accused Arvind Chaudhari. The said company has its head office at Pune and had also established a branch at Yavatmal, where the Applicant entered into an agreement with the said company for investment under the garb of plantation and other similar schemes and accordingly invested the amount. The learned counsel further submits that the Applicant was asked to explain the said scheme to others. Accordingly, acting in good faith, the Applicant merely explained the scheme to certain persons. It is submitted that the Applicant received returns only on the amount invested by him and that he neither became a member of the said scheme nor induced any person to make an investment therein. Although the F.I.R. alleges that the Applicant had explained the scheme to others, it was done without any dishonest intention. It is further submitted that not a single rupee was received by the Applicant pursuant to his explaining the said scheme to any person. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that 4 37 BA 1138.26.odt the main accused is Arvind Chaudhari and that there is no material showing any dishonest inducement or receipt of any amount by the Applicant from the alleged investors. In view of the nature of the allegations and the Applicant’s limited role, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and draws my attention to the statements of various witnesses, wherein it is alleged that the Applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, used to explain the scheme to investors. She further submits that an amount of more than Rs. 10,00,000/- has been credited to the account of the present Applicant from the said company. It is submitted that, although the Applicant has been arrested and the relevant documents have been collected, considering the seriousness of the alleged offence and the fact that the total amount involved in the present crime is approximately Rs. 4 crores, the Applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. She further submits that the Applicant and the other co-accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, induced the investors to make investments and compelled them to create a 11 members team, who were thereafter required to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- under various 5 37 BA 1138.26.odt schemes floated by the said company. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the amount involved, and the material collected during the investigation, the learned APP submits that the Applicant’s role cannot be viewed in isolation from that of the other co-accused persons. She, therefore, prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides. I have perused the F.I.R. and the other documents annexed to the charge-sheet. It appears that one Arvind Chaudhari is shown as the Managing Director/ Director/Authorised Signatory of the aforesaid company. The said company appears to be engaged in the business of development and maintenance of plantations. It further appears that the said company had floated certain schemes and induced people to invest by engaging various persons, and the present Applicant also appears to have been associated with the said company. Though it appears that the services of the Applicant were availed of by the said company, the Applicant had also entered into an agreement with the said company and invested an amount therein. It appears that the total amount invested by the Applicant was Rs. 15,00,000/-. So far as the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer are concerned, it can 6 37 BA 1138.26.odt be gathered that the allegation against the Applicant is primarily to the extent that he explained the scheme floated by the said company to prospective investors. However, it is pertinent to note that not a single rupee was directly credited to the Applicant’s account by any of the investors. It is further pertinent to note that whatever amounts were credited to the Applicant’s account appear to have been received from the said company and not from the investors. The learned counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in Deepak Maruti Ghanwat v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 12361 of 2026, wherein anticipatory bail was granted to the Applicant therein. Needless to mention, that although the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail in Deepak Maruti Ghanwat (supra), it was specifically observed that the observations made therein were confined to the limited purpose of considering the prayer for anticipatory bail and that the Supreme Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Therefore, the said order would not be of much assistance to the present Applicant. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the observations hereinabove, coupled with the fact that the Applicant was arrested on 12.05.2026, the 7 37 BA 1138.26.odt investigation is now complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, I am inclined to grant bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Padmakar Ramkrushna Golait be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 391/2026 registered with Police Station Awdhutwadi, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999, Sections 3, 5, 21, 23, 25 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. (v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on even a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid 8 37 BA 1138.26.odt conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 8. The observation of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 11:16:48