ITESH HASMUKHLAL JAIN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
ABA/516/2026 · 2026-07-02
Shri R M Joshi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1542 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1542 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
921-ABA-516-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 516 OF 2026 ITESH HASMUKHLAL JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ….. Mr. Ronak Shah a/w Mr. d. R. Jethaliya, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for Respondents
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : JULY 02, 2026 P. C. :
1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No. 285/2025 registered with Police Station Shirpur City, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act.
2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that in Shirpur Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd, suspicious transactions of loan were found during audit. The present Applicant is one of such person who claims to have obtained loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- without any security being placed for the same. It is alleged that over an amount of Rs. 1 Crore is due from the Applicant. The complaint is made on the basis of grievance made by the genuine depositors to say that money deposited by them is misused in this manner. 2026:BHC-AUG:26097
921-ABA-516-2026.odt
3.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the outset, submits that the Applicant had filed for loan earlier, however, he never received the loan. It is claimed that by using said documents submitted by him, fresh loan is shown in his name for which he cannot be held responsible. It is his further submission that having regard to the said fact, the possibility of misuse of documents exists. He drew attention of the Court to the fact that one of the loan account has been settled by payment made by one of the directors and which according to him, shows that the Applicant has not taken loan but other accused persons in the name of Applicant have obtained said money. 4. Learned APP opposed the said contention by pointing out the fact that in the year 2025 mortgage deed came to be executed in respect of loan obtained by the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant had full knowledge about the loan transaction and now he cannot be allowed to deny the same. It is submitted that the document collected during the course of investigation so also audit report shows that the huge amount of loan were obtained by persons like Applicant and the genuine depositors of the bank are duped. It is his contention that having regard to the manner in which the offense in question has been committed, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant would be necessary. 5. It is not the case of the Applicant that there does not exist any loan in his name. He claims that by misusing the documents submitted by
921-ABA-516-2026.odt him at earlier point of time, the said loan has been shown in his name. There are documents on record to indicate that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was disbursed to the Applicant and from his account it has gone to the third party's account. Though it is now claimed by the Applicant that he had no knowledge about the transaction, this contention of the Applicant gets falsified from the admitted fact that in the year 2025 the Applicant has executed an agreement mortgaging property of another person towards security of the said loan. This fact indicates about knowledge of the Applicant of the said loan transaction.
Moreover, there is material on record to show that the said property is encumbered and as such, mala fide intention of the Applicant can be gathered from execution of the said document. Thus, there is prima facie material on record to indicate mala fide on the part of the Applicant in obtaining loan and not returning the same. Moreover, the defense sought to be taken by the Applicant gets falsified in view of the documents on record. This Court finds substance in the contention of the learned APP that in the facts of the case, custodial interrogation of the Applicant would be necessary. 6. In view of the above, Application deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani