1 17 BA 701.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 701/2026 (Praful Samadhan Ingle 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. Mohd. S. S. Rahim, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 10/07/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.687/2025 registered with Police Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant met his friend Nikhil who told that if anyone needs a job as a peon or clerk in central government he will help in securing job for which money has to be paid to one Sharma and Hafiz Khan. On this basis, the informant asked a job for his wife who was provided with the contact details of accused no 1 – Manoj Bagade. He contacted accused No. l who told about a vacancy of librarian 2 17 BA 701.26 available at Kendriya Vidyalaya Kamptee for which he was asked to pay Rs.17 lakhs. Subsequently the informant paid the total amount of Rs 15,50,000/- to accused No 1. He was provided with an appointment letter but was told to wait, however accused No 1 failed to provide job. Informant also came to know that accused No. 1 had also cheated another person. The allegations are that the accused persons have cheated to the tune of Rs.20,50,000/- . On this basis, the first information report came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the entire charge-sheet, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is involved in the crime. In one of the crimes, the statement of the accused was recorded and the same statement was annexed along with the present charge-sheet to show the involvement of the present applicant in the present crime. He submits that absolutely there is no documentary evidence to show that the documents prepared like appointment orders and other documents are allegedly forged by the applicant. Therefore, he submits that since there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is involved in the crime, 3 17 BA 701.26 therefore, he deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the APP submits that in another crime No.241/2025 registered at Police station, Nagpuri Gate at Amravati, the applicant has confessed that he has committed the present crime also He further submits that the forged documents are prepared by the applicant and those are used in the commission of the crime. Though his account does not show any transaction between the main accused and the applicant, however the learned APP submits that he has accepted the amount in cash. In sum and substance, the learned APP submits that the applicant is responsible for preparation of the forged documents like appointment orders, etc. He submits that this is the case of job scam, therefore the application be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. From perusal of the first information report, the name of the applicant does not appear, however, it appears that the applicant has given a statement in the crime No. 241/2025 which was registered at Police Station Nagpuri Gate at Amravati, wherein he has stated that he has prepared 4 17 BA 701.26 forged documents like appointment letters and he has committed the offence, the said statement was included in the present crime as evidence. Apart from that, I do not see any other cogent material against the applicant. 7. Considering the nature of allegations and the material collected by the Investigating Officer, I am of the firm opinion that the applicant cannot be put behind bars on such material. Hence the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Praful Samadhan Ingle be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.687/2025 registered with Police Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. 5 17 BA 701.26 (v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 8. The observation of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. 9. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any stands disposed of. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane