BA-762-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 762 OF 2026 Sanjay s/o Narayan Hange ... Applicant [Accused No.1] Versus State of Maharashtra, Through the Officer In-charge Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed, Taluka and District Beed. … Respondent ….. Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Vishal Chavan and Mr. Hashmi Ubaid S., Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. A. B. Girase, PP for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 29.07.2026 Pronounced on : 31.07.2026 ORDER :- 1. Applicant seeks grant of regular bail on account of his arrest in crime no. 544 of 2025 of registered at Shivajinagar Police Station, District Beed, for offences punishable under Sections 61, 198, 199, 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 14 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. BA-762-2026 -2- 2. Bail is urged on the ground that applicant is falsely involved. That he happens to be Revenue Assistant Officer. He has unblemished 25 years’ service career. He was supposed to be only handling files, which were meant to be taken to the Collector. Moreover, for long duration he was merely holding additional charge. He was also transferred from Beed to Parali and after his transfer, above FIR has been lodged on 19.11.2025, which, if taken at its face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the applicant. That, applicant was already in police custody for nine days. Entire investigation pertains to documentary evidence. Applicant was not in the process of decision making or passing any award. There is no incriminating material against him. There is also no material to link him with other accused. That, he is not beneficiary of any amount. Now investigation is over and chargesheet is already filed. Even his voice sample as well as handwriting sample has been collected. Mobile of applicant is already seized. Therefore, there is no need of further custody and no purpose would be served by further detention. 3. Learned counsel further pointed out that, applicant had no direct access to the Collector. There is no documentary evidence or evidence in any form to show that there was collusion with co- BA-762-2026 -3- accused. Moreover, files carrying signatures of the Collector were not in his sole custody. Learned counsel took this Court through the statements of Nitin Katkar, Mahadev Jogdand, Yogini Jadhav and Somnath Shinde and would submit that, there is no incriminating material against present applicant. He is not signatory to any of the awards or roznama. That he is not custodian of the files. That, moreover, the inquiry committee which was constituted is changing its stand from time to time. That there is pick and choose policy adopted by inquiring committee. Moreover, allegations are predominantly civil in nature. There was no notice served as required under Section 35(3) of BNS before arresting applicant. There was no complaint by any of the parties to the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel further points out that co-accused, i.e. accused no.5 is beneficiary of anticipatory bail by this Court and accused nos. 7, 9 and 10 have been granted interim protection. Applicant being the sole bread earner of the family, and he being behind since long, and there being not possibility of flight, so also on the ground of parity, bail is urged for. 5. While opposing the application, learned PP pointed out that, investigation revealed revenue staff, including present applicant, to be BA-762-2026 -4- involved in the above offence. According to learned PP, inquiry and investigation revealed that, applicant was the main person who was in direct contact with other accused (Collector). There are CDRs as well as WhatsApp messages in that context. According to learned PP, in fact applicant is the linchpin in the entire camp. That, there is huge possibility of misusing liberty as certain files are still to be laid hand on. On such count, bail is opposed. 6. Perused the FIR dated 19.11.2025 which is at the instance of one Satish Vasant Dhulam, a Deputy Collector of Land Acquisition. Substance of the FIR is that, inspection and verification revealed that, for a period from 24.04.2025 to 15.11.2025, in all 10 persons named in the FIR, including the present applicant, had indulged in the process of passing award on acquisition of land of various gat numbers, and without any actual proceedings, or involvement of parties, awards are shown to be passed and excessive amounts are awarded by committing forgery and fabricating documents. Thereby, there is loss to the Government to the tune of over Rupees 73.4 crore and on above report, crime is registered for above offences. 7. The modus operandi, alleged in the FIR is that, after transfer of the then District Collector/Arbitrator on 24.04.2025, it was revealed BA-762-2026 -5- to the succeeding Collector that, forged and backdated arbitration orders were issued over the next six months in the name of the former Arbitrator in several cases of acquisition of lands for National Highway No. 211 and New Highway No. 52. 8. Allegations against the applicant, who was Assistant Revenue Officer, are that, by hatching conspiracy and in collusion with co- accused persons, there is fabrication of documents and false documents were manufactured to show process being completed in order to extract enhanced/excessive compensation. Learned APP has taken this Court through the statements of all stakeholders involved in the award who have denied participating in or facing any proceedings of arbitration. It is pointed out that, there is exorbitant rise in amount of compensation awarded even when the parties had not demanded, and they are also not shown to be beneficiaries of any amount. It appears that, prior to lodging FIR, inquiry committee was constituted and after thorough satisfaction, FIR is lodged. 9. Prima facie there is ample material regarding involvement of applicant who was the sole custodian of various files pertaining to the awards of arbitration and he was said to be the linchpin as well as the person in direct contact with the Collector, against whom also there BA-762-2026 -6- are allegations of being involved in committing the above offence. Therefore, with such nature of allegations, and considering the gravity and magnanimity of the crime, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail, more particularly when prosecution claims that huge number of files, which were in the custody of applicant, are yet not traced. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The application is rejected. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre