Order 300926aba862.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO. 862 OF 2026. Anil Sonaji Padghan -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms S.N. Thakur, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.555/2026 registered with Washim Police Station, District Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 318[4], 336[3], 336[4], 338, 339, 340, 340[2], 341[1] and 341[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The first information report is lodged by Bhagwan Wankhede alleging that he was acquainted with Ramesh Navghare, who told the informant that he could arrange for job Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:13065 Order 300926aba862.26 2 at Panchayat Samiti for which the informant would be required to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter several meetings took place in that regard and informant paid Rs.1.73 lakhs to Ramesh Navghare, in turn he handed over an appointment order purportedly issued by the Collector Office, Washim, which was found to be forged and bogus. Hence, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that name of applicant does not appear in the first information report, however, subsequently his name has surfaced. It is alleged that applicant and co-accused Ramesh Navghare duped the victim under the pretext of providing job. The applicant has absolutely no connection with Ramesh Navghare, and therefore, merely on the basis of certain call records and bank transactions, he has been made an accused in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has given hand loan to said Ramesh Navghare, who had returned part of the amount, and these are the only transactions between them. However, there is no material in the entire charge sheet to connect the applicant with job scam. In such circumstances, the learned Counsel submits that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the Rgd. Order 300926aba862.26 3 application by submitting that there are total three accused persons and the present applicant is the main accused, who is working as a Clerk in Collector Officer, Washim. She further submits that the appointment order which was issued by the office of Collector, Washim and that the present applicant is also working there, and she further submits that the chats between the applicant and Ramesh Navghare, which clearly indicates that both, in collusion with each other were duping persons under the garb of providing job. She further submits that there are several calls between the applicant and co-accused persons. The first information report was initially lodged by one victim, however, at later point of time it also transpired that even there was another victim. In such circumstances, she submits that anticipatory bail may not be granted, since from the date of registration of the first information report, as the applicant has been absconding since the registration of first information report, and his custodial interrogation would be necessary in order to obtain further information, therefore, she prays for rejection of application. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions, it appears that the informant was duped by one Ramesh Navghare under Rgd. Order 300926aba862.26 4 the pretext of providing job. It further appears that name of present applicant does not appear in the first information report, however, it further appears that during the course of investigation, his name surfaced. Accordingly material was collected against him in the nature of chats between him and Ramesh Navghare. Perusal of those chats reveals that the same were in respect of giving job and said Ramesh Navghare had paid amount to the applicant, and he is expecting that the applicant would provide job to the informant. It further appears that apart from the said chat, there are several call details between the applicant, Ramesh Navghare and the third accused. It is further to be noted that the appointment order issued by the office of Collector, Washim was given to the son of the informant namely Aniket. It is further to be noted that several appointment orders enclosed with the charge sheet, which were issued to other victims. Information was sought from the office of Collector, Washim, and it was informed that the said appointment orders were not issued by the office of Collector. The important factor in this case is that the applicant is working in the office of Collector, Washim, therefore, in such circumstances it could be gathered that the applicant is Rgd. Order 300926aba862.26 5 instrumental in doing all these activities. It further appears that there were transactions between Ramesh Navghare and present applicant; whereas name of Ramesh has been mentioned by the informant in the first information report stating that he was in contact with him and he had assured him for arranging job for his son Aniket. It is further to be noted that from the chats it could be gathered that Ramesh had paid amount to the applicant, and therefore, considering all these factors, in my opinion the applicant has not made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, Criminal Application is therefore, rejected. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 01/10/2026 16:54:27