951-BA-830-26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 951 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2026 1. Anita W/o. Hanmant Mamadge 2. Uddhav S/o. Hanmant Mamdge … Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Another … Respondents ...... Mr. Gajanan G. Kadam, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S.V. Hange, APP for Respondent-State ...... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17 JUNE, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. G.G. Kadam, Advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for respondent-State. 2. By the present application, the applicants seek their release on bail in connection with Crime No. 171 of 2026 registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 – Anita Hanmant Mamadge is the wife of accused No.1 Hanmant Mamadge and applicant No.2 – Uddhav Hanmant Mamadge is the son of accused No.1. It is submitted that though the applicants are shown as Directors of Manjara Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Harangul, the entire business affairs and day-to-day management of the company were looked after exclusively by accused No.1 2026:BHC-AUG:24030 951-BA-830-26.odt 2 – Hanmant Mamadge. Learned counsel submits that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly indicate that accused No.1 was the person who was accepting soyabean from the agriculturists, processing the same into seeds and dealing with its sale in the market. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants had no active participation in the day-to-day business transactions of the company and were not involved in the operational management thereof. Merely because they are Directors of the company, they cannot be held liable for every act allegedly committed by accused No.1. Learned counsel submits that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The evidence collected by the prosecution is documentary in nature and is already in the custody of the Investigating Agency. Nothing remains to be recovered from the applicants. The applicants are in custody since 01.04.2026, and their further detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned APP opposes the application. He submits that the applicants are admittedly Directors of the company and the alleged transactions were carried out through the company of which they were office bearers. It is submitted that a large number of agriculturists have suffered substantial monetary loss on account of non-payment of the value of the soyabean entrusted to the company. Learned APP submits that being 951-BA-830-26.odt 3 Directors, the applicants cannot completely deny their responsibility towards the affairs of the company. Considering the magnitude of the offence and the financial loss caused to the agriculturists, he prays for rejection of the application. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. I have also perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation. 7. The FIR is lodged by one Gunwant Ramrao Walse. The allegations disclose that the informant and several agriculturists had stored their soyabean produce with Manjara Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Harangul. Accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamdge was managing the affairs of the company, whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 were its Directors. The prosecution alleges that the entrusted soyabean was processed into seeds and sold in the market. The informant and his son had deposited soyabean worth Rs.19,69,632/- with the company. Similar deposits were made by several other agriculturists. However, despite repeated demands, payment was not made and ultimately the company premises were found closed. The allegations indicate that accused No.1 became unavailable and switched off his mobile phone. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that accused No.1 – Mamadge was managing the affairs of the company and was actively dealing with the transaction. 951-BA-830-26.odt 4 8. It appears from the charge-sheet that applicant No.1 – Anita Hanmant Mamadge and applicant No.2 – Udhav Hanmant Mamadge are shown as Directors of the company. However, at this stage, no specific overt act of actual participation in the day-to-day transactions has been attributed to either of the applicants. Prima facie, the material on record indicates that accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamadge was the person who was looking after and controlling the business affairs of the company. The allegations regarding acceptance of produce, processing thereof and non-payment to the agriculturists are principally directed against him. 9. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The evidence collected during investigation is mainly documentary in nature. Nothing is pointed out to show that any further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. The applicants are available for trial and their presence can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. 10. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the prima facie view that continued incarceration of the applicants is not warranted. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamadge is absconding. The present applicants cannot be denied bail solely on account of his conduct, when the role attributed to the applicants stands on a different footing from that of accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamadge, who is alleged to have actively managed the affairs of the company and against whom the main allegations are made. 951-BA-830-26.odt 5 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER I. The application is allowed. II. Applicants (1) Anita Hanmant Mamadge, and (2) Udhav Hanmant Mamadge be released on bail in connection with Crime No.171 of 2026 registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on each of them executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial Court on every effective date, unless specifically exempted by the Trial Court. (b) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to prevent him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court. (c) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. (d) The applicants shall furnish their permanent residential addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and shall intimate any change. (e) The applicants shall cooperate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 951-BA-830-26.odt 6 (f) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. III. Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order while deciding the case on its own merits. IV. It is clarified that the present order is passed considering the distinct role attributed to the applicants and the material indicating that accused. Therefore, this order shall not be construed as creating any right of parity in favour of accused No.1 – Hanmant Mamadge. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane