BA-1287-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1287 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3300 OF 2026 IN BA/1287/2026 Pravin S/o. Mayaram Patil … Applicant (Accused No.3) Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ….. Mr. B. R.Warma, Advocate for Applicant Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application No. 3300 of 2026 ….. CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The applicant seeks his release on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.53 of 2026 registered with Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 318(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 341(1), 340(2), 61(2), 229(2), 212, 198, 199, 233, 234, 228, 240, 256, 257, 201 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The applicant was arrested on 8th March, 2026. The charge-sheet was filed on 4th May, 2026. Certain reports are stated to be awaited and further investigation in relation to the 1 of 9 2026:BHC-AUG:38765 BA-1287-26 claims submitted to other insurance companies are continuing. 3. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that Rajendra Shalindar Jadhav had died on 23rd February, 2024 due to illness. Despite his death, several insurance policies were allegedly procured in his name. Thereafter, his death was projected as having occurred in a motor vehicle accident on 19th April, 2025. For that purpose, a false narrative of an accident involving a motorcycle and a Mahindra Thar vehicle was allegedly created. Crime No.86 of 2025 was registered based on that narrative and police, hospital records, inquest, post-mortem and other documents were allegedly fabricated or caused to be fabricated by the accused persons. 4. On the strength of those documents, accidental death claims were allegedly submitted to several insurance companies. The claim submitted to Shriram General Insurance Company, whose officer is the first informant in the present crime, was detected during verification and no amount was disbursed by that company. The prosecution, however, submits that other insurance companies had already disbursed substantial amounts aggregating to approximately 1.17 crore and that those ₹ amounts were credited to the account of the widow, Aruna Rajendra Jadhav. 2 of 9 BA-1287-26 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the original FIR. The investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed. It was submitted that no part of the insurance amount has been credited to the applicant’s bank account and no witness states from personal knowledge that the applicant received or shared the insurance proceeds. According to the learned counsel, the description of the applicant as the mastermind is merely the conclusion of the investigating officer and is not supported by any direct evidence. 6. It was further submitted that Crime No.86 of 2025 concerning the alleged accident had already been investigated and a chargesheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle. The legality of registration of the present FIR was questioned by relying upon the principles governing registration of a second FIR. It was argued that the prosecution could, at the highest, have undertaken further investigation in the earlier crime. The applicant has been in custody since 8th March, 2026, the relevant documents and his mobile phone have been seized, and no useful purpose would be served by his further detention. 7. Learned APP opposed the application. It was submitted that the present applicant is not implicated merely because his name surfaced during interrogation. The charge-sheet attributes to him the principal role in conceiving and facilitating the alleged 3 of 9 BA-1287-26 scheme. He is alleged to have acted in concert with the widow and the other accused in suppressing the actual date and cause of death of Rajendra Jadhav, arranging the false accident narrative, facilitating preparation of false police and medical documents and using those documents for lodging claims before several insurance companies. 8. Learned APP further submitted that the vehicle projected in the alleged accident, the applicant’s mobile phone, insurance records, bank-account material, claim documents and other official records form part of the chargesheet. The investigation has disclosed claims before several insurers and further verification by those insurance companies is continuing. Considering the magnitude and organised nature of the alleged fraud and the involvement of police and medical personnel, release of the applicant at this stage may prejudice further investigation and expose the prosecution witnesses to influence. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the FIR, supplementary statement, police report, the documents referred to during the hearing and the chargesheet. At this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or record any finding which may affect the trial. At the same time, the Court is required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the applicant, the 4 of 9 BA-1287-26 material supporting that role, the severity of the punishment, the possibility of interference with the investigation or witnesses, the applicant’s antecedents and the period of custody. 10. The mere fact that the applicant was not named in the original FIR is not decisive. The FIR was lodged after the claim submitted to Shriram General Insurance Company was subjected to verification. The alleged involvement of the applicant and the other accused was thereafter unearthed during investigation. In a conspiracy which is alleged to have been executed through a series of police, hospital, banking and insurance documents, the role of every participant need not necessarily be known to the first informant on the date of registration of the crime. 11. The prosecution has described the applicant as the principal architect of the scheme. That description, by itself, would not be sufficient to refuse bail. However, the accusation against him is not confined to that description. The material collected during investigation prima facie attributes to him participation in suppressing the actual death of Rajendra Jadhav, arranging the subsequent story of accidental death, facilitating the use of the Thar vehicle for creating that narrative, procuring or facilitating the creation of the supporting documents and using those documents for lodging claims before several insurance companies. 5 of 9 BA-1287-26 12. The chargesheet also refers to insurance policies allegedly procured after the actual death of Rajendra Jadhav, claims submitted to different insurers, substantial credits in the bank account of the widow and the subsequent movement of the amounts so credited. The mobile phone and the vehicle connected with the alleged transaction have also been seized. These circumstances must be considered cumulatively. At this stage, they provide prima facie support to the prosecution allegation that the applicant’s role was wider than that of a person incidentally associated with an individual document. 13. It is true that the prosecution has not presently shown a direct bank transfer of the insurance proceeds into the applicant’s account. No conclusion regarding receipt or sharing of the amount by him can therefore be recorded. However, the absence of a direct transfer to the applicant does not, at the stage of considering bail, by itself efface the allegation that he conceived, facilitated or coordinated the fraudulent claims. A conspiracy of the nature alleged is ordinarily required to be inferred from the series of acts, the conduct of the participants and the documentary and electronic circumstances. 14. The contention founded upon the earlier Crime No.86 of 2025 also does not persuade this Court to grant bail. The earlier crime proceeded on the footing that a genuine motor accident had 6 of 9 BA-1287-26 occurred. The present crime alleges that the earlier FIR, investigation and chargesheet themselves formed part of a wider conspiracy to fabricate an accidental death and cheat several insurance companies. The record further indicates that a report dated 1st August, 2026 has been submitted in the earlier proceeding stating that the accident case was found to be false and seeking appropriate action before the Magistrate. 15. The legality and maintainability of the present FIR may be examined in appropriate proceedings if challenged. It would not be proper, while considering regular bail, to pronounce finally upon that issue. Prima facie, however, the present crime concerns a subsequently discovered and wider conspiracy involving several accused, multiple allegedly fabricated official records and claims before different insurers. The objection concerning the second FIR does not, at this stage, displace the substantive material collected against the applicant. 16. The allegation is not of a simple or isolated act of cheating. The prosecution alleges a premeditated scheme in which the actual death of a person was concealed, a subsequent accidental death was projected, official police and medical records were brought into existence, and the resulting documents were used to obtain substantial amounts from insurance companies. The alleged use of public officials and 7 of 9 BA-1287-26 official records imparts greater gravity to the accusation, since such acts, if ultimately established, undermine confidence both in public documentation and in the insurance-claim process. 17. Filing of the chargesheet is undoubtedly a relevant circumstance. However, it does not create an indefeasible right to bail. The chargesheet contains a large number of documents and witnesses. Verification of the claims and the financial trail involving other insurers is continuing and certain reports are awaited. The witnesses include insurance officials, public servants and persons connected with the creation and processing of the disputed records. Having regard to the central coordinating role attributed to the applicant, the apprehension of his influencing witnesses or obstructing the remaining investigation cannot, at this stage, be regarded as merely speculative. 18. The applicant has been in custody from 8th March, 2026. The period of custody, though relevant, is presently not so prolonged as to outweigh the gravity of the accusation, the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the punishment prescribed for the principal offences and the prima facie material indicating the applicant’s central role. The withdrawal of the applications filed by the other accused also does not furnish any ground of parity in favour of the applicant. 8 of 9 BA-1287-26 19. On an overall consideration of the nature of the accusation, the role specifically attributed to the applicant, the documentary, financial and electronic material referred to in the charge-sheet, the amount involved, the participation of several persons including public officials, and the further investigation, which is still in progress, this Court is not satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for release on bail at this stage. 20. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the consideration of the present bail application and are prima facie in nature. The trial Court shall decide the proceedings on the evidence placed before it without being influenced by these observations. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Bail Application No.1287 of 2026 is rejected. (ii) The application stands disposed of accordingly. (iii) In view of disposal of Bail Application itself, Criminal Application No.3300 of 2026 is also disposed of. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) Tandale 9 of 9