1 28.ABA.711.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO.711 OF 2026 Subodh Ratansing Patil ..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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Y.P. Bhelande, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.M. Kadukar, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 24.08.2026. Heard. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.698 of 2025 registered with Khadan Police Station, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2), 341(1), 342(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023, the applicant prayed for pre-arrest protection. The applicant along with other accused persons allegedly duped the informant and others by giving false assurances of giving government job on the basis of false and fabricated documents and therefore the report. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that so far as role of the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged in the FIR that on various occasions the applicant was present along with Nilesh, main accused, who had accepted the amount for securing the job from the informant. After perusal of the entire charge-sheet, the 2 28.ABA.711.2026 role of the applicant was only to the extent that he was present along with Nilesh. Neither the amount was accepted nor any transaction was made with the informant by the applicant. During the investigation statements of some of the victims have been recorded, wherein the name of the applicant surfaces that even the applicant has collected huge amount, however neither those persons have approached the Police nor they have registered FIR for the same. Further there is delay in registration of FIR and therefore, it is submitted that the applicant cannot be made an accused. So far as the informant is concerned, as was submitted earlier, he has neither named the applicant nor the applicant has collected any amount from the informant. It is submitted that this is a systematic mode of the victims to recover the amount from the applicant. To substantiate his contention, learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas and anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors. 2024 INSC 117 and judgment of this Court in the case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 ALL MR(Cri) 4360. He submits that so far as the cognizance of the complaint for commission of offence under Section 406 or 420 of the IPC is concerned it can be taken only against the one who has committed the offence and therefore considering the role of the applicant, he prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the application, on the ground, that the 3 28.ABA.711.2026 observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the aforestated cited case would not be helpful to the applicant since facts and circumstances are altogether different. He submits that initiation of the prosecution case is not for recovery of amount but the informant and other victims desires to punish the applicant and therefore the criminal law was set in motion. He further submits that earlier this Court has rejected the anticipatory bail to the applicant by a reasoned order and this is a second bail application of the applicant on the same material and circumstances, and therefore it cannot be entertained. Further it is submitted that this application is not maintainable as the charge-sheet is filed against the arrested persons and not against the applicant. 5. Learned APP further invited my attention to the statements of the victims wherein there are allegations against the applicant that applicant has duped several persons to the tune of Rs.53 lakhs. The Investigating Officer tried to hard to trace the applicant however he was not available at the school where he used to teach and was a Headmaster. He invited my attention to various statements of the school teachers, teaching in the said school in order to show the conduct of the applicant and therefore, considering the seriousness of the crime, the application is prayed to be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record and order of this Court dated 30.01.2026 passed in Criminal Application 4 28.ABA.711.2026 No.998/2025. Perusal of the said order reveals that this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail of the applicant has dealt in detail the role of the applicant, particularly in paragraphs 8 to 10. This Court has considered the case diary and the material. I find the same material is in the charge-sheet. Therefore in my opinion it needs no further consideration. It is to be noted that the applicant’s name surfaces in the FIR. The Criminal law was set in motion against the applicant on the basis of allegations made in the FIR, however during the course of the investigation, aggravated form of the role of the applicant surfaced, under such circumstances, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not be helpful to the applicant. It is further to be noted that the applicant and main accused Nilesh has duped several persons under the pretext of securing government job and also by stating that they will get appointment order from the Court to that effect and duped several unemployed. So far as the main accused Nilesh is concerned, against him there are six offences of similar nature have been registered, however, he has been released on regular bail. 7. It appears that the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of teachers at the time of search of the applicant, from which some shocking facts surfaced that the applicant deputed other persons to teach students in the said school on his behalf. Also that he prepared forged attendance certificate in order to show that he was regularly attending the school. Considering the fact that the applicant is the headmaster, it was not 5 28.ABA.711.2026 expected from him to adopt such tactics to avoid arrest. Considering the nature of allegations and seriousness of crime and also the conduct of the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary, hence, the application is rejected. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 18:29:05