BA709-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 709 OF 2026 Kailas Gawaram Raut, Age 38 years, Occu: Service & agri. R/o Raut Wasti, Loni Kh. Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar ... Applicant VERSUS The state of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Loni Police Station, Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondent Mr. Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Addl. P. P. For the Respondent, Mr. A. D Ostwal, Advocate assists to P.P. CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 19th August, 2026 ORDER:- 1. The applicant seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 587 of 2025 registered with Loni Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for offences punishable under Sections 314, 316(1), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(1), 318(2), 318(4), 319, 335, 336, 338, 340, 344 and 61(2), read with Sections 2(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is accused no.1. He was arrested on 3 November 2025. The investigation is complete and the charge- sheet has been filed. 1 of 10 2026:BHC-AUG:37445 BA709-26 2. The prosecution case arises from the internal audit of Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Loni. Sugarcane payments were required to be periodically credited to the accounts of farmers on the basis of lists containing their names, quantity of sugarcane supplied, applicable rate, amount payable, bank particulars and IFSC codes. The applicant was working as an Assistant Accountant and was directly concerned with preparation and processing of the sugarcane-payment lists. 3. According to the prosecution, between 3rd January, 2019 and 3rd November, 2025, the applicant manipulated the payment data, created duplicate or fictitious beneficiary accounts and caused funds belonging to the sugar factory to be transferred to accounts held by him, his wife, close relatives and other persons who had not supplied sugarcane to the factory. The audit report quantifies the disputed transactions at approximately Rs.1.91 crore. 4. The audit report does not refer to a solitary mistaken entry. It identifies different modes by which the funds were allegedly diverted. One category concerns payments made to persons who had not supplied sugarcane. It records that duplicate beneficiary accounts were created to confer an additional financial benefit upon the applicant, his friends or members of his family. Another category concerns interest payments allegedly credited in the applicant’s name although no 2 of 10 BA709-26 corresponding farmers’ deposit existed in his favour. 5. The audit further refers to migration from the earlier accounting software to a new ERP system during the financial year 2024-2025. It is alleged that unpaid balances standing in the names of genuine farmers were not correctly carried forward. Instead, false opening balances were prepared and furnished for uploading into the new ERP system. The prosecution alleges that, after the passage of time, these amounts were transferred into accounts of the applicant, his family members and other persons to secure wrongful financial gain. 6. The transaction schedules prima facie show direct credits into three bank accounts belonging to the applicant. They also show transfers into the account of his wife, the account of his sister, the account of his sister’s son and other connected accounts. The prosecution has collected the corresponding bank statements. Thus, the accusation is supported, at this stage, not merely by oral statements but also by an identified banking transactions and the internal audit schedules. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no authority to introduce a new beneficiary, delete an existing account or independently authorise payment. The procedure involved the cane department, accounts department, cheque department, 3 of 10 BA709-26 superior officers and the concerned banks. It was argued that a large cooperative sugar factory could not have remained dependent upon a single Assistant Accountant and that a diversion continuing for nearly six years could not have escaped the annual audits and scrutiny of superior officers. According to the applicant, the entire responsibility has been placed upon him to protect those who exercised actual administrative and financial control. 8. It was further submitted that the applicant’s duty was confined to preparation of payment bills. Every transaction had to pass through several stages of verification and authorisation. The applicant has been made a scapegoat, although the alleged transactions could not have been completed without the participation or negligence of several other officers. The investigation is complete, the evidence is documentary, and the applicant has remained in custody since 3 November 2025. The other accused have either secured bail or interim protection, and therefore, his further detention is unnecessary. 9. Learned APP, assisted by learned counsel for the informant, strongly opposed the application. It was submitted that the statements of the factory employees explain the procedure and the particular manner in which it was allegedly bypassed by the applicant. The applicant had handled the payment work for several years and had gained the confidence of the management. He used to personally carry 4 of 10 BA709-26 the payment data, Excel sheets and pen drive to different banks without taking any other employee with him. He did not make the final lists available in the cheque department in the ordinary course. 10. Learned APP submitted that the audit report commencing from page 48 provides year-wise particulars of the alleged diversion. Page 49 identifies the accounts into which the amounts were transferred. Three of those accounts belong to the applicant. The remaining accounts include those of his wife and close relatives. Page 50 records that payments were transferred to persons who had not supplied sugarcane and that duplicate beneficiary accounts and false opening balances were created. It was, therefore, argued that this is not a case resting upon a general allegation of supervisory negligence. The funds of the sugar factory are directly traced to accounts belonging to the applicant and his family. 11. It was further submitted that Section 316(5) BNS is specifically invoked. The said provision applies where criminal breach of trust is committed by a person entrusted with property or dominion over property in the capacities specified therein and provides for imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years, together with fine. Considering the magnitude, duration and systematic nature of the alleged transactions, learned APP submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the exercise of discretion. 5 of 10 BA709-26 12. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the relevant part of the charge-sheet. The Court is conscious that a detailed evaluation of the evidence or a finding concerning guilt is impermissible at the stage of bail. The evidence is required to be examined only to determine whether there is a prima facie case and whether, upon considering the nature of the accusation, role of the applicant, gravity, punishment, period of custody, antecedents, possibility of interference with witnesses and other relevant circumstances, the discretion of granting bail ought to be exercised. 13. It is true that the payment procedure involved more than one department and that the allegations extend over a considerable period. Whether the transactions could have been effected without the knowledge, participation or negligence of other officers is a matter for investigation and trial. However, the possible involvement of other persons does not, at this stage, displace the material specifically attributable to the applicant. 14. The prosecution material prima facie indicates that the applicant was not merely performing a mechanical or ministerial task. The statements relied upon by the prosecution attribute to him control over preparation and transmission of the payment data. He allegedly carried the electronic payment data personally to the banks and did not associate other employees with that part of the process. The 6 of 10 BA709-26 truthfulness and legal effect of those statements will be determined at the trial; nevertheless, they cannot be excluded from consideration at the bail stage. 15. More significantly, the audit schedules and bank statements prima facie show repeated transfers into three accounts belonging to the applicant and into the accounts of his wife and close relatives. The applicant’s contention that he lacked final authority to sanction the payments does not presently explain the repeated direct financial benefit allegedly received by him and persons closely connected with him. This is not a case where the prosecution relies only upon the applicant’s designation or upon the fact that he worked in the accounts department. 16. The audit material also attributes to the applicant the creation of duplicate beneficiaries and preparation of false opening balances during migration to the new ERP system. If ultimately established, these acts would indicate a planned and continuing course of conduct rather than an inadvertent duplicate payment. The accusation concerns funds belonging to a cooperative sugar factory and earmarked for sugarcane suppliers. The magnitude and duration of the alleged diversion, therefore, cannot be disregarded. 17. The applicant has relied upon the grant of protection to the 7 of 10 BA709-26 other accused. However, the material presently placed before the Court attributes to the applicant the preparation and handling of the impugned payment data, whereas the other accused are principally alleged to be beneficiaries of the transfers. Parity cannot be applied by merely counting the accused who have secured bail or interim protection; the nature of the role and the material against each accused must be comparable. The applicant’s role is prima facie distinguishable. 18. Completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet are relevant circumstances. They reduce the requirement of custodial interrogation but do not create an indefeasible entitlement to bail. The applicant worked within the establishment, and several material witnesses are employees of the factory. Considering the position of confidence allegedly enjoyed by him and the manner in which the transactions are stated to have continued, the apprehension of influencing those witnesses cannot, at this stage, be treated as wholly unfounded. 19. Section 316(5) BNS, as invoked in the charge-sheet, carries imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years. Whether every ingredient of that provision is ultimately established against the applicant will be decided by the trial Court. At the present prima facie stage, however, the prosecution allegation is that the applicant was entrusted with and exercised dominion over the payment process and 8 of 10 BA709-26 dishonestly diverted funds. The Court cannot proceed on the footing that the highest punishment is only seven years when Section 316(5) forms part of the charge-sheet. 20. The applicant has been in custody since 3rd November 2025. The period of custody, though material, is not presently so disproportionate to the gravity of the accusation and the punishment prescribed as to override the other considerations. There is also no material at this stage demonstrating that the trial is unlikely to commence within a reasonable period. The question of prolonged incarceration may be reconsidered if the trial does not progress for reasons not attributable to the applicant. 21. On a cumulative consideration of the specific role attributed to the applicant, the direct banking trail, repeated transfers into accounts belonging to him and his close relatives, the alleged creation of duplicate beneficiaries and false opening balances, the magnitude and duration of the alleged diversion, and the punishment prescribed under Section 316(5) BNS, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant at the present stage. 22. The application is accordingly rejected. 23. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the consideration of the present bail application. They are 9 of 10 BA709-26 prima facie in nature and shall not influence the trial Court while framing the charge, recording evidence or deciding the case on its merits. The applicant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial does not make reasonable progress or upon any other substantial change in circumstances. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 10 of 10