1 14 ABA 776.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 776/2026 (Prafulla S/o Lalit Rathod 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. P. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. S. S. Dhote, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 28/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection Crime No. 606/2026 registered with Police Station Murtizapur, Tah. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant has been working with Isaf Small Finance Bank Ltd., having branches at Akola, Murtizapur, Washim and Karanja Lad, for the last one and a half years. The present applicant and the co-accused persons were working under the informant as customer service officer i.e. CSO. The work assigned to the applicant was to collect amounts from the customers of the Bank and deposit the same with the Bank. However, though the applicant collected amounts 2 14 ABA 776.26.odt from several customers, he failed to deposit the same with the Bank. Accordingly, an audit was conducted, which revealed that a total of 33 customers had been defrauded of an amount of Rs. 14,01,756/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 11,99,466/- was collected by the present applicant. Thus, the applicant allegedly cheated the customers as well as the Bank to the extent of Rs. 11,99,466/-. Accordingly, the First Information Report (“FIR”) came to be registered on 17/07/2026. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. The allegations in the FIR are that the applicant collected EMIs from the customers but failed to deposit the same with the Bank. However, there are no receipts on record to show that the applicant had collected the said amounts from the customers. Under such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted, and the applicant deserves to be granted bail. He relies upon several judgments/orders, which are as under: (I) Baldevbhai Varvabhai Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat (Anticipatory Bail application No. 16959/2023, decided on 06/11/2023). (II) Abhishek Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1360/2021, 3 14 ABA 776.26.odt decided on 01/07/2022) (III) Sunil Rikabchand Jain Vs. Senior Police Inspector & anr. with connected matters (Anticipatory Bail Application No.2677/2022, decided on 08/08/2025). (IV) Tejas Lalit Soni Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. (Anticipatory Bail Application No.160/2025, decided on 09/06/2025). (V) Jigar Parmar & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. (Writ Petition No.5994/2025, decided on 08/06/20260. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that, as per the allegations in the FIR, the applicant has duped the Bank of an amount of more than Rs. 11,00,000/-. She further submits that, during the course of investigation, it was also revealed that the applicant had availed loans in the names of other persons. According to the learned APP, a loan of Rs. 75,000/- was obtained in the name of one of the customers, but the applicant had not paid a single penny to the said victim. She further submits that, since the registration of the FIR, the applicant has remained untraceable. There is every likelihood that there may be other persons to whom the applicant might have similarly duped. Under such circumstances, she submits that unless 4 14 ABA 776.26.odt and until custodial interrogation of the applicant is conducted, neither the money trail can be traced nor an effective investigation can be carried out. Therefore, she prays for rejection of the application. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, it appears that the applicant was working as a Customer Service Officer/Recovery Officer. It further appears that Isaf Small Finance Bank Ltd., Murtizapur, had provided loan facilities to several customers. For recovery of the said loans, two persons, namely, Ranjit Satish Gavai and the present applicant, allegedly were appointed. When the customers received SMS messages regarding the pendency of their EMIs, they approached the Bank and lodged complaints stating that they had already paid the respective EMIs. The allegation against the applicant is that, though he had collected EMIs from the customers, he had not deposited the said amounts with the Bank. Upon perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are about 33 customers from whom the applicant and the co-accused had collected EMI amounts. However, the applicant had not deposited the said amounts with the Bank, and the amount involved is approximately Rs. 11,99,466/-. 5 14 ABA 776.26.odt 7. During the course of investigation, a statement was recorded which reveals that the applicant had collected the documents of one of the victim and obtained a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the Bank, without paying any amount to the said victim. Under such circumstances, it appears that, apart from the amount allegedly collected by the applicant towards EMIs, another allegation has also surfaced against him, namely, that he obtained a loan by collecting the documents of other victim and did not pay the loan amount to the said victim. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a delay of more than seven months in lodging the FIR. However, the case diary shows that an audit was conducted and, even in the audit report, it was revealed that the applicant had allegedly misappropriated an amount of more than Rs. 11,00,000/-. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is an unexplained delay. So far as the judgments/orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, the facts of those cases are altogether different and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said judgments/orders cannot be applied to the present case. Hence, the application is rejected. 6 14 ABA 776.26.odt 8. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 18:11:12