951-BA-919-26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 951 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 919 OF 2026 Nivruti Laxman Alapure VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...... Mr. Gajanan G. Kadam, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S.V. Hange, APP for Respondent-State ...... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17 JUNE, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. G.G. Kadam, Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for respondent-State. 2. By the present application, the applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Crime No. 171 of 2026 registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as a Munim (Accountant) with a company namely Manjara Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Harangul. The company is owned by accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamadge, whereas accused Nos.2 and 3, namely Anita Mamadge and Udhav Mamadge, are its Directors. The applicant was merely an employee discharging duties as an accountant. Learned counsel submits that the principal allegations in the charge-sheet are directed against accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamdge, who had allegedly processed the soyabean entrusted by 2026:BHC-AUG:23826 951-BA-919-26.odt 2 various agriculturists into seeds and sold the same in the market. The agriculturists had stored their soyabean in the said company with an expectation of receiving the agreed consideration. However, when they demanded payment, the company failed to make payment. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had no concern with the financial management, policy decisions or business affairs of the company. He was neither a partner nor a Director of the company and was not responsible for making payments to the agriculturists. The applicant has been in custody since 01.04.2026. It is submitted that there is no material demonstrating that the applicant derived any wrongful gain or actively participated in the alleged misappropriation. He submits that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The evidence collected by the prosecution is documentary in nature and the same has already been seized by the Investigating Agency. Nothing remains to be recovered from the applicant. Therefore, his further custodial detention is not necessary. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposes the application. He submits that the applicant was serving as the accountant of the company and was actively handling its financial transactions and records. Being the accountant, the applicant was aware of the business dealings of the company and facilitated the transactions relating to acceptance of soyabean 951-BA-919-26.odt 3 from the agriculturists. The acknowledgments in respect of the deposited produce were issued through him and, therefore, his role cannot be termed as merely clerical. Learned APP further submits that despite receiving the produce from numerous agriculturists, the company failed to make payment and thereafter accused No.1 absconded, resulting in substantial financial loss to the agriculturists. Considering the magnitude of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant, he prays for rejection of the application. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. I have also perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the material placed on record and the statements made by the agriculturists. 7. The FIR is lodged by one Gunwant Ramrao Walse. The allegations disclose that the informant and several agriculturists had stored their soyabean produce with Manjara Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Harangul. Accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamdge was managing the affairs of the company, whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 were its Directors. The prosecution alleges that the entrusted soyabean was processed into seeds and sold in the market. The informant and his son had deposited soyabean worth Rs.19,69,632/- with the company. Similar deposits were made by several other agriculturists. However, despite repeated demands, payment was not made and ultimately the company premises were found closed. The allegations indicate that accused No.1 became unavailable and switched off his mobile phone. The 951-BA-919-26.odt 4 material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that accused No.1 – Mamadge was managing the affairs of the company and was actively dealing with the transaction. 8. So far as the present applicant is concerned, the material collected during investigation indicates that he was working as an accountant in the company. The specific role attributed to him is that he remained present at the time of acceptance of soyabean from the agriculturists and issued acknowledgments thereof. Prima facie, the record does not indicate that the applicant was entrusted with decision-making authority regarding disposal of the produce or payment of sale consideration to the agriculturists. The principal allegations regarding misappropriation and non-payment are directed against accused No.1 and the management of the company. 9. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The evidence against the applicant is mainly documentary in nature and is already in the custody of the prosecution. Nothing remains to be recovered from the applicant. The applicant has been incarcerated since 01.04.2026. At this stage, no material is pointed out showing that his further custodial interrogation is required. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the applicant and the stage of the investigation, continued detention of the applicant as an undertrial prisoner would not serve any useful purpose. 951-BA-919-26.odt 5 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER I. The application is allowed. II. Applicant – Nivrutti Laxman Alapure be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 171 of 2026 registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing a Personal Recognizance Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial Court on every effective date, unless specifically exempted by the Trial Court. (b) The applicant shall not shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (c) The applicant shall furnish his permanent residential addresses and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall intimate any change. (d) The applicants shall cooperate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. (e) In the event of breach of the condition, it will be open for the prosecution or the complainant to approach the concerned Court for cancellation of bail. 951-BA-919-26.odt 6 III. Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order while deciding the case on its own merits. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane