-1- 947-BA-1199-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1199 OF 2026 1. Sakharam Umaji Kamble 2. Shriram Balasaheb Pande … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nilesh Kashyap (Through V.C.) a/w Ms. Pooja Anant Dongre and Mr. Baliram Ingle APP for Respondent - State : Mr.V. K. Kotecha ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State. With the able assistance of the learned Advocates, I have also perused the entire charge sheet and the investigation report. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail by the applicants who are arrested in connection with Crime No.345 of 2026, registered with Beed Rural Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Applicant No.1 was arrested on 22nd January, 2026, whereas Applicant No.2 was arrested on 23rd 2026:BHC-AUG:43488 -2- 947-BA-1199-2026 January, 2026 and both have since been in custody. Accused No.3, who was the contractor to whom the alleged misappropriated amount had been disbursed, has already been released on bail. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, arises out of financial assistance provided by the State Government under the Special Component Scheme to Nagad Narayan Industrial Co- operative Society, Nagzari, for establishing a PVC pipe manufacturing project. Applicant No.1 was the President and Applicant No.2 was the Secretary of the Society. The Government share capital of Rs.1 crore and a long-term government loan of Rs.1 crore were sanctioned. Out of which Rs.1,92,50,000/- was released to the Society. The construction of the project was entrusted to co-accused Sachin Samadhan Gavhad for a contract value of Rs.1.42 crores. Under the agreement, 15% of the contract value was payable at the commencement of work, 80% after completion, and the balance 5% was to be retained as security. The work was required to be completed within a stipulated period. The test audit conducted in 2017 recorded that an aggregate amount of Rs.1,76,12,500/- had been shown as paid towards construction between 15th March, 2012 and 15th November, 2012. When the auditor inspected the site, walls of about 12 to 14 feet had been constructed, but the structure was allegedly built without -3- 947-BA-1199-2026 plastering and roofing and the project had not commenced its intended activity. It is alleged that the applicants, in their capacity as President and Secretary, released an amount far in excess of the contractual stages, failed to obtain the utilisation certificate, and neither secured completion of the project nor recovered the amount from the contractor. On that basis, it is alleged that the applicants in connivance with the contractor and the other co- accused persons, committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the State Government. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the accusation of the entire amount was misappropriated is contradicted by the subsequent valuation made by the PWD Department. The report dated 16th June, 2026 values the existing structure at Rs.1,72,60,056/-. It is submitted that substantially the entire amount was utilised in constructing the project and that the remaining construction material is also lying at the site. It is further submitted that the dispute, at its highest, concerns non- completion of the construction within the contractual period and irregularity in releasing the installments. There is no material showing that either applicant received any part of the amount personally or used it for acquiring any personal asset. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR was registered in December -4- 947-BA-1199-2026 2017, the charge sheet has been filed in June 2018, and the applicants have been in custody since January 2026. The investigation is complete and the prosecution case rests principally upon the audit report, bank statements, agreements, and other documentary material already in the custody of the investigating agency. It is submitted that the applicants were never declared proclaimed offenders by following the procedure prescribed under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. The contractor and the other co- accused have already been released on bail. Both the applicants have no criminal antecedents and are ready to abide by any stringent conditions securing their presence during the trial. 5. Learned APP opposes the application. He submits that the subsequent valuation cannot establish utilisation of the amount in 2012. Because it has been prepared by applying the prevailing rates described in 2019. The original contract was for Rs.1.42 crores, whereas Rs.1.76 crores were released despite the construction remaining incomplete. The first substantial payment itself was contrary to the contractual stipulation, which permitted only 15% as advance. The applicants controlled the financial affairs and bank transactions of the Society. It is also submitted that they remained unavailable for several years and were arrested only in January 2026. Their past conduct, therefore, gives rise to a -5- 947-BA-1199-2026 reasonable apprehension that their presence during the trial may not be secured if they are released. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the charge sheet and the documents placed on record. The accusations concern public money and cannot be treated lightly. At the same time, the seriousness of an economic offence is one of the relevant considerations and not a substitute for examining the particular role, nature of evidence, custody undergone, possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time, and the risk associated with the release. 7. The material relied upon by the prosecution undoubtedly indicates that substantial amounts were released without adhering to the stages described in the construction agreement. The project was not completed within the stipulated period, and no utilisation certificate was obtained. These circumstances constitute prima facie material requiring the applicants to face trial. However, the question at this stage is not whether the payments were made in accordance with the contract or administratively were not regular, but whether further pre-trial detention of the applicants is necessary. -6- 947-BA-1199-2026 8. The prosecution alleges that in the FIR and the audit report that Rs.1,76,00,000/- was misappropriated. The subsequent PWD assessment values the existing structure at Rs.1,72,60,000/-. The contention that the document pertains to Gut No.111-A, at this stage, need not be gone into for the simple reason that the letter produced by the applicant dated 21st September, 2026 issued by the Gram Panchayat Office, Tandalwadi, clearly states that the building constructed by the Society falls in Gut No.111-A and the photographs are also annexed. The same letter is taken on record and marked as Exhibit-''X'' for the purpose of identification. The evaluation stated in the said document, which is annexed to the present application at page 307 establishes complete utilisation of the original amount, though this document in itself cannot be accepted as conclusive proof, and the same has to be tested at the time of trial. The valuation also cannot retrospectively regularise payments made contrary to the agreement. Nevertheless, the report is an official document demonstrating the existence of a substantial structure at the projected site. It is, therefore, a relevant subsequent circumstance while considering whether the applicants should continue to remain in custody. Despite a specific query, no material was pointed out at this stage showing that any identified portion of the amount was credited to the personal account of the present applicants or utilised by them for acquiring -7- 947-BA-1199-2026 any personal assets. The bank transactions, resolutions, agreement, audit report and other financial reports are already part of the charge sheet. The precise destination of each payment, the authority under which it was made, the actual value of the construction at the relevant time and whether the applicants acted with dishonest intention necessary to constitute the alleged offence are matters requiring evidence. Any conclusive finding on these aspects would prejudge the trial. 9. The FIR was registered in the year 2017 and the charge sheet was filed in the year 2018. The applicants are shown in the charge sheet as absconding and a reference is made to Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. However, beyond this recital, the prosecution has not presently produced any warrant, execution report, proclamation or other contemporaneous material demonstrating the efforts made to secure the presence of the applicants for the purpose of investigation as required under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code. Their late arrest is undoubtedly a circumstance demanding appropriate safeguards. But, in absence of further material, it would not justify indefinite retention after completion of the investigation. 10. The applicants have undergone custody for more than 7 -8- 947-BA-1199-2026 months. The offences carry a maximum punishment of 7 years. The case is founded predominantly upon documentary evidence and the prosecution proposes to rely upon several official and documentary witnesses. There are no allegations pertaining to criminal antecedents. The contractor has been released on statutory bail, while the other co-accused are also released on statutory bail. Having regard to the completion of the investigation, filing of the charge sheet, documentary nature of the evidence, period of custody, punishment prescribed, and the possibility of securing the applicants' presence by imposing stringent conditions, this Court is satisfied that the applicants can be released on bail. Hence, the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No.345 of 2026, registered with Beed Rural Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, on each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicants shall attend the trial Court on every date fixed, unless their attendance is specifically exempted. -9- 947-BA-1199-2026 b) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. c) The applicants shall furnish their current residential addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. d) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if they possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their release. e) The applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. g) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. At the time of trial, any observations will also not preclude the authorities from proceeding under appropriate law for recovering the amount which has been disposed of. (iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale