- 1 - aba1616.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1616 OF 2026 Pritee Fuljee Kokani .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & another .. Respondents Mr. A. J. Nagode, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State. AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1654 OF 2026 Mayur Balu Gavali .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & another .. Respondents Mr. A. J. Nagode, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the State. AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1668 OF 2026 Mahendra Bhagwan Shinde .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & another .. Respondents Mr. M. V. Bhamre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the State. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT : - 2 - aba1616.26.odt 1. These applications for pre-arrest bail arise out of Crime No. 0695/2026 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 344, 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. Since the facts of all the applications are identical, by consent of both sides, these applications are heard and decided by common order. 3. First Information Report indicates that in the office of Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar, it was found that the Government funds in Police Training Centre, Dhule in Digital Salary processing platform has been mis-appropriated by the employees working therein. Allegation is that Senior Clerks, Manoj Buwa and Mahendra Shinde were instrumental in submitting the bills in Treasury Office. The total amount to the extent of Rs. 47,60,000/- was transferred in the account of five individual police personnel. It was also found that the individuals in whose account the amounts were credited withdrew the said amount and paid part of the said amount to the co-accused. After noticing the said mis-appropriation, notices were issued to the concerned calling upon them to deposit - 3 - aba1616.26.odt the amount to the Government Treasury. It is also claimed that these five employees deposited total sum of Rs. 47,60,000/-. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicants in both the applications submit that the Applicants are not responsible for the alleged mis-appropriation as they had no control or role in respect of the Salary Processing System which was operated by co-accused Manoj and Mahendra. They claimed that in good faith, after receipt of amount in the account and when the co-accused told the Applicants about the amount being credited inadvertently, they transferred the said amount to the co-accused. It is also claimed that the said transfer was effected since there was no other mechanism available for the Applicants to deposit the money in Government Treasury directly. They further canvassed that after issuance of notice, the Applicants have deposited entire amount of alleged mis-appropriation in Government Treasury and as such nothing is required to be recovered from them. It is further claimed that the present case revolves around documentary evidence and since the said documents are available with the office of Superintendent of Police, question of custodial interrogation of the Applicants does not arise. In respect of Applicant in Anticipatory Bail - 4 - aba1616.26.odt Application No. 1616/2026, apart from other submissions, learned Counsel for Applicant submits that the Applicant is a lady with responsibility of a school going child and hence, her liberty deserves to be protected. 5. Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the Applicants by referring tot he status of the Applicants to be police personnel. It is claimed that the Applicants had knowledge about the amount being transferred into their account unmeritedly and inspite of the same, they failed to return the said amount to the Government, however, shared half of the amount to the co-accused and retained half portion thereof. In order to support this submission, reference is made to the account statement of each Applicant indicating so. It is claimed that the evidence on record clearly shows collusion between the Applicants and co-accused and therefore, this is a fit case for custodial interrogation of the Applicants in order to ascertain the manner in which the offence in question has been committed. 6. It is a shocking state of affairs that in the office of Superintendent of Police i.e. the head of the District, offence of such nature has been committed and it has gone unnoticed for a - 5 - aba1616.26.odt substantial period. There is prima facie evidence on record to show that without any amount being due to the Applicants, the amounts between the range of Rs. 8,50,000/- to Rs. 14,90,000/- came to be transferred into their accounts. Said transfers are for the period from June 2023 to July 2024. This indicates that over the period of a years, in systematic manner, the Government funds are mis- appropriated. Needless to say that the role of co-accused who were handling the said portfolio is undoubtedly clear herein. Now, question arises as to whether the case of the Applicants that they did not know about the mis-appropriation of money and bonafidely transferred money to the co-accused could be accepted. 7. Any prudent person, more particularly, a police personnel, if comes to know about any amount being received into his/her account without entitlement, the first thing which would be done by such person is to place the said fact on record pointing out the same to the superior officer. An attempt would be made immediately to reimburse the said amount to the Government Treasury. Apart from the fact that no such attempt was made by the Applicants over a period of one year, infact the evidence collected during the course of investigation and more particularly, statement of account of - 6 - aba1616.26.odt Applicants, shows their involvement and collusion with the co- accused in this crime. Statement of account of each Applicant indicates that a day on which the said amount was received, half of the amount was withdrawn in cash. This amount is admittedly paid to the co-accused. Remaining half amount was retained by the Applicants. This Court put a specific query to learned Counsel for the Applicants to show reason and purpose for which said withdrawal of half of the amount was done on the same day of its credit into their accounts. Learned Counsel for Applicants failed to provide any explanation much less satisfactory one. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Applicants had full knowledge about the money being not due to them and shared half of the amount with co-accused and retained remaining thereof. In such circumstances, after issuance of notice to them, deposit of money by them is inconsequential. 8. Needless to say that in every case deposit of amount would not become a ground for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Applicants even though Applicants are Government employees. The question of custodial interrogation is not the sole criteria for determining such issue. The nature of offence and the manner in which it is committed - 7 - aba1616.26.odt would also assume importance and relevance for the purpose of decision of pre-arrest bail application. Offence in question is without doubt serious and the police personnel themselves have committed said offence causing loss not only to the public exchequer but also to the faith which is reposed upon the institution like police force. This Court also finds substance in the contention of learned APP that having regard to the evidence on record and as prima facie involvement of the Applicants is found in the crime in question, custodial interrogation of the Applicants would be necessary in order to ascertain the exact manner in which the offence has been committed. 9. Insofar as contention of one of the Applicants, who is a lady, that she has responsibility of a child to take care of, is concerned, it is for the said Applicant to think about it before committed the crime. Merely because Applicant is a lady, no pre-arrest bail can be granted once her involvement in the crime like one in hand which involves mis-appropriation of public money, is prima facie. - 8 - aba1616.26.odt 10. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court does not find it justified to grant any relief to the Applicants. Hence, all the applications stand dismissed. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb