RB43BA946-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 946 of 2026 Dinesh Narayan Anekar Age 41 years, Occu: Service R/o Khadakpura, Hingoli ... Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station Officer, Hingoli Town Police Station, Dist. Hingoli … Respondent ..... Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE: 28th September, 2026 ORDER:- 1. The present application is for regular bail by the applicant, who is arraigned as accused in connection with Crime No. 640 of 2025 registered with Hingoli City Police Station, District- Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409, 408,120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act). The applicant was arrested on 16.09.2025 and since then, he is in custody. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint came to be lodged by one Arpit Kamalkishor Bagdiya, who alleged that he and his mother had accounts with Mahila Urban Cooperative Credit Society, 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:44287 RB43BA946-26 Hingoli since 2023 and they have fixed deposits which is now amounting to Rs.24,45,000/-. It is further alleged that on maturity of the said deposit, whenever the complainant and his mother went to withdraw the money, the Society remained closed and on one or two occasions, they had also seen the Chairman and when they enquried for repayment, they were informed that the Society does not have any money. Since the applicant is said to be an employee of the Cooperative Credit Society, working as a Passing officer, he has been arraigned as an accused in the offence. The allegations are that the entire Cooperative Credit society funds that has been siphoned by the accused persons are to the tune of Rs.30,78,96,676/- and the total financial loss caused to the Society and its members are more than 4,43,91,657/-. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been behind bars since 16.09.2025. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. He submits that out of total 33 accused persons, 12 accused are absconding while 16 persons have already been released on bail. Only two persons who were arrested, including the present applicant, are left in custody. He submits that the applicant had joined the services of the Cooperative Credit Society in the year 2021 and there is no recovery of any amount from the present applicant. He further argues that on the contrary, the family members of the present applicant have also kept their deposits to the tune of more than Rs. 12 lakhs in the credit society and therefore, he, alongwith his family members are also one of the 2 of 5 RB43BA946-26 victims. He further submits that, as the prosecution also involves offences under the MPID Act, the property of the present applicant has been attached by the Investigating Agency as, in the event of the offence being proved, the proceeds of the crime can be recovered therefrom. He submits that as the applicant is not required for any further custodial interrogation or for the purpose of investigation, the periods spend in the custody should be considered and the present application be allowed. In addition to above he also submits that he stands in party with the other accused persons who are similarly situated and have been released on bail. 4. The learned APP appearing for the State submits that the appointment of the present applicant is not of 2021 but earlier, from 2018, he was working as an Assistant Manager and Passing Officer. He submits that as far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, all the challans and the payment receipts have been countersigned by the present applicant. He invites my attention to a few of the receipts which specifically stand as payment of cash and are signed by the present applicant. He submits that without the counter signature of the present applicant, the entire amount in cash would not have been possible to be withdrawn and therefore, he is one of the prime accused person in the entire offence. He does not stand in party with the other accused persons and hence, his application cannot be treated in par with the other accused persons. He submits that though the investigation has completed, the present applicant did not disclose as 3 of 5 RB43BA946-26 to who has withdrawn the amount in cash and, therefore, that portion of investigation has not been concluded. Taking into consideration that the involvement of the present applicant in every withdrawal by way of cash from the credit society, the present application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 6. Undisputed part as far as the present applicant is concerned is that, he was an employee of the Credit Society and was working as a Passing Officer. The role attributed has also not been disputed by the present applicant. The allegations made are specific and pertinent against the present applicant. However, the fact remains that whether the applicant had intention or knowledge of the entire offence, that needs to be proved at the time of trial. The applicant was working as an Assistant Manager and Passing Officer in the Society and, therefore, it is necessary that the prosecution, at the time of trial, will have to prove that the applicant was executing or implementing the instructions received from his senior officers and also the complicity in the alleged offence. At this stage, I am of the considered view that his continued incarceration would not be warranted or in other words, he is entitled to be released on bail taking into consideration the fact that out of 33 accused persons, all other accused persons except one apart from the present applicant have been released on bail and more particularly, that those persons who have been released on bail are 4 of 5 RB43BA946-26 senior officials and had higher accountability, such as Chairman, Directors, Cashier. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the present applicant can also be released on bail. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant, in connection with Crime No. 640 of 2025 registered with Hingoli City Police Station, District- Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409, 408,120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties of the like amount. (iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 5 of 5