Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18461 (BOM)

NANDKISHOR S/O GOPALRAO DHAWANGALE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS DURGAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

ABA/793/2026 · 2026-10-13

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 14-Cr.ABA-793-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [A.B.A.] NO. 793 OF 2026 Nandkishor S/o. Gopalrao Dhawangale -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. G.S. Gaur, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.B. Jawade, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. Mr. Shashikant Nagrare, Advocate for Assist to Prosecution. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2026. Heard. 2. Apprehending arrest, the accused has approached this Court in connection with Crime No.02/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Durgapur, District Chandrapur. 3. The informant, Vinod Gopaldas Mahasahib, stated that his sister-in-law, Sadhana, and her children had deposited an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with Mitramandali Nagari Patsanstha Maryadit, Tukum, Chandrapur, between 2020 and 2021, on his advice which was subsequently renewed. An amount of Rs.22,50,256/- was allegedly lying in their savings accounts, Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:13750 2 14-Cr.ABA-793-2026 along with Rs.9,990/- in the informant’s savings account. He alleged that, from February 2025 onwards, the society refused to honour withdrawal requests on the ground of insufficient funds. Despite repeated requests, the society’s Secretary, Nandkishor Gopalrao Dhangawale, and its Board of Directors allegedly failed to repay the deposits, resulting in an alleged total outstanding amount of Rs.72,60,246/-. Based on these allegations, the First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Secretary/President of the Co-operative Society/Pat Sanstha. He submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. are that the applicant has not obtained proper documents from the borrowers to whom loans were disbursed. However, not a single penny has been misappropriated by the applicant. In fact, the applicant has filed proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for recovery of the said loan amount. An audit was conducted till 2025, however, the auditor did not notice any serious irregularity or misappropriation on the part of the applicant. Under such circumstances, he submits that the applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation if anticipatory bail is granted. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the application and submit that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar under Piyush Mahajan 3 14-Cr.ABA-793-2026 Section 101 speaks for itself. They submit that several illegalities have been committed by the applicant. The applicant was the Secretary/President of the Society, and it was his duty to keep the records up to date and obtain the relevant documents which are required for disbursement of the loan amount. However, without obtaining the necessary documents, such as mortgage deed of the property, promissory notes, documents of guarantors, post-dated cheques, proper stamp papers, etc., the applicant disbursed the loan amounts. This itself shows that the applicant disbursed the amounts to the borrowers with an ill intention. The learned A.P.P. further submits that the applicant forged the resolutions by signing on behalf of other directors. The attention was invited to the statement of one of the directors, wherein the said director has stated that he had not signed the said resolution. Therefore, they submit that, considering the serious allegations against the applicant, the application may not be allowed. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the learned counsel, it appears that the applicant worked as the Secretary for some time and as the President for some time. It further appears that an Administrator was also appointed to the said Society. The informant alleges that the applicant and other accused persons disbursed loans to borrowers without obtaining proper documents. It is to be noted that the applicant initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for obtaining a recovery certificate, however, the Piyush Mahajan 4 14-Cr.ABA-793-2026 said proceedings were rejected by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies on the ground that the Society had not obtained several documents from the borrowers. It is further to be noted that, as was submitted by the learned A.P.P., allegations of misappropriation and forgery of resolutions have also been raised against the applicant. However, the F.I.R. does not contain any specific allegation that the applicant misappropriated the amount or own any property from the misappropriated funds. These allegations appeared during the course of investigation. So far as the forgery of resolutions are concerned, it is for the Investigating Officer to conduct a thorough investigation, and the said allegations can be tested at the time of trial. Perusal of the statement of one of the investors goes to show that the applicant has purchased huge property from the allegedly misappropriated amount, however, the material collected during the investigation does not clearly disclose that it is the applicant who has misappropriated the amount and purchased the property from that amount. It is further to be noted that the F.I.R. is only restricted to the disbursal of the amount in illegal manner. Be that as it may, the entire case is based on documentary evidence, and if any further allegations surface, it is for the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order :- Piyush Mahajan 5 14-Cr.ABA-793-2026 O R D E R i) The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of; ii) In the event of arrest of applicant (Nandkishor S/o. Gopalrao Dhawangale) in connection with Crime No.02/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Durgapur, District Chandrapur, be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount; iii) The applicant shall attend the Economic Offences Wing, Chandrapur, on Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. of every month or as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency; iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the prosecution witnesses. v) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same; (vi) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [ (M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 16:56:33