6.BA.3354.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3354 OF 2026 Vinay Vasantlal Sanghavi .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3009 OF 2026 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.3354 OF 2026 ....................  Mr. M. P. Rao, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Arsh Misra and Mr. S. B. Borhade, Advocates for Applicant.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Viraj Shelatkar a/w. Mr. Ronak Shah, Advocates for Intervenor in Interim Application No.3009 of 2026.  Mr. Rahul Bhagwat, PSI, Shirur Police Station, Pune. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Shelatkar, learned Advocate for Intervenor in Interim Application No.3009 of 2026. 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.626 of 2024 registered with Shirur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the 1 of 7 6.BA.3354.2026.doc Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. 3. Application is filed by the Applicant who is arraigned as Accused No.15 in C.R. No. 626 of 2024. There are total number of 26 Accused in the present crime. FIR is registered on 09.07.2024. 4. Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate would submit that Applicant was appointed as Expert Director in the Cooperative Society named Anagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit at Shirur between the years - 2012 and 2017 of the concerned Pat Sanstha and had virtually no role whatsoever in receiving any amount from the said Pat Sanstha under the twin Tharavas of Rs.25,00,000/- each of the years 2013 and 2015 as also with regard to Accused No.1 having received the loan of Rs.27 Crores pursuant to signing of the Resolutions by the Board of Directors of the Pat Sanstha. 5. He would vehemently argue that Applicant did not have any right to vote or sign any papers pertaining to the Tharavas or for that matter any loan amount given by the Pat Sanstha. He would submit that Applicant is not named in the initial FIR but has been arraigned as an Accused alongwith other Directors being responsible for causing loss of Rs.16 Crores to the Pat Sanstha. He would submit that Applicant is arrested on 11.04.2026 and he is incarcerated since then. 6. On merits, he would submit that the statutory audit Report under Section 88 of the MCS Act and Rules thereunder has been 2 of 7 6.BA.3354.2026.doc placed on record which does not show any complicity of the Applicant or any role having been played by the Applicant with regard to the alleged loss caused to the Pat Sanstha. 7. He would also persuade the Court to consider the case of the Applicant as an Expert Director being on a much higher footing than the other Directors of the Pat Sanstha who were all otherwise related directly to the principal Accused No.1 who had received the amount of Rs. amount of Rs. 27 Crores as loan from the Pat Sanstha in the name of his trading firms, Meghas Trading Company Limited. 8. He would submit that Applicant had resigned in the year 2022 despite which he has been arraigned as an Accused in a case of cheating, breach of trust, and forgery. 9. Per contra, Advocate - Mr. Shelatkar, appears on behalf of the Intervenor and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP appears on behalf of the State. 10. They both in tandem would submit that Applicant being an Expert Director was fully aware about the siphoning of the amount by the Chordiya family and Accused Nos.1 to 10 from the Pat Sanstha. They would submit that as an Expert Director, though Applicant may not have a right to vote or get elected as Office Bearer but he was a person having specialization in finance because of which he was appointed as Expert Director. 3 of 7 6.BA.3354.2026.doc 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 12. At the outset, it is seen that Applicant was an Expert Director and it is not the prosecution case that he was a beneficiary of any of the amounts which were disbursed by the Pat Sanstha to Accused No.1’s firms namely, Meghas Limited, Meghraj Hansraj & Sons, Meghanas Sales and Meghas Trading Company. The record primarily shows that Applicant being the Expert Director also took steps to recover the amount on behalf of Depositors and in that process recovered a substantial amount of Rs.11 to 12 Crores and many small depositors were repaid back their amounts. 13. It is prima facie seen that Applicant was appointed as an Expert Director due to his expertise and not due to any proximity with the Chordiya family. The prosecution case qua Applicant being the beneficiary is in the negative. The statutory audit report under Section 88 of the MCS Act also does not show any role played by the Applicant for disbursement of the loan amount to Accused No.1 and his various firms. Neither the Applicant has been a signatory for the purpose of loan disbursement at any point of time. I have had the occasion of passing an order with regard to three other Accused persons who were Directors of the Pat Sanstha in the present crime on 31.08.2026. That order has already been uploaded, and three Directors of the 4 of 7 6.BA.3354.2026.doc Patasanstha who had also been similarly charged with causing loss of Rs.16 Crores to the Company have been enlarged on bail. I have given substantial reasons in the said order, which for the sake of brevity, I am not repeating them herein again. 14. The case of the Applicant before me is fully covered by my aforesaid order and decision while granting bail to the three Directors of the Patasanstha who were, infact otherwise related to the principal Accused No.1 who had received the disbursement of the loan amount of Rs.27 Crores. In view of my aforesaid prima facie observations and findings, and the role of the Applicant as attributed to him while working in the Patasanstha and even by the prosecution case he not being a beneficiary, the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. The Applicant had virtually no role to play in the day-to-day management of the Patasanstha, had no statutory voting rights, had no Authority to sanction loans, was not a custodian of the funds of the Patasanstha, and therefore, did not have any entrustment or control over the affairs of the Patasanstha. 15. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant is granted bail subject to following conditions:- (i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with Crime No. 626 of 2024; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on 5 of 7 6.BA.3354.2026.doc furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one or two surety / sureties of the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the concerned Police Station, once every month on the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; (iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order; (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant. 16. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are 6 of 7 6.BA.3354.2026.doc limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 17. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.03 17:50:00 +0530