1 63BA1463.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 63 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1463 OF 2026 Dhamasagar Alias Balu Hiralal Samdura VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Mr. Rahul R. Karpe - Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. A. Gaikwad - APP for the State ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3348 OF 2026 IN BA/1463/2026 ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026 ORAL ORDER : CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3348 OF 2026 : - 1. This application seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor is allowed and disposed of accordingly. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1463 OF 2026: - 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, the learned APP for the State, and the learned Advocate for the Complainant. With their assistance, I have also perused the entire charge-sheet placed on record. 2026:BHC-AUG:40214 2 63BA1463.2026.odt 3. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, on the date of the incident i.e. 18.03.2026, the Complainant was deceived into depositing an amount of Rs. 13,80,000/- into the account of the present Applicant, on the pretext that the outstanding gold pledge loan against the present Applicant could be discharged and that, upon the return of the gold and its subsequent disposal, the loan amount along with certain interest paid by the Complainant would be retained by him, and the remaining amount would be returned to the present Applicant. It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 – Deokate, who was known to the Complainant, approached him and convinced him to finance the loan amount for the present Applicant and, in return, earn some profit. The Complainant accepted the offer and, therefore, agreed to deposit the entire loan amount into the account of the present Applicant. It is further alleged that, when the amount was deposited into the account of the present Applicant, the present Applicant left the spot on the pretext of obtaining a cheque book, while Accused No. 1 – Deokate left the spot on the pretext of answering nature’s call. When the servant of the Complainant realized that both of them had fled from the spot after the amount was deposited, he immediately telephoned the Complainant and informed him about the said incident. The Complainant thereafter visited the branch and informed the Branch Manager about the cheating allegedly committed against him. He further requested the Branch Manager to immediately freeze the account so that the amount could 3 63BA1463.2026.odt not be withdrawn by the accused persons. It is alleged that the Branch Manager assured the Complainant that the account could be frozen for 24 hours, as such action was within his powers. However, on the following day, when the Complainant visited the branch, he was informed that, on 18.03.2026 itself, the present Applicant had withdrawn the entire amount from another branch and, therefore, no amount was left in the account. The Complainant was accordingly informed that the amount would now have to be recovered from the accused. The Complainant thereafter realized that he had been cheated by the accused persons and, hence, proceeded to lodge an FIR with the jurisdictional police. Accordingly, C.R. No. 154/2026 came to be registered against the present Applicant [Accused No.2], Accused No. 1 – Deokate, and Accused No. 3 – Gaikwad, Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Jamkhed, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), and 316(2), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that the present application is being pressed, more particularly, on the ground of parity, as Accused No. 1 – Deokate has been released on regular bail by the Trial Court. He submits that the role attributed to Deokate is much higher than the role attributed by the prosecution to the present Applicant in the entire charge-sheet. Reading the statement 4 63BA1463.2026.odt of the informant, it is submitted that the specific role attributed to the present applicant is, firstly, that his name was used to show that there was an outstanding gold loan in his name, secondly, that his loan account was provided to the complainant, into which the alleged amount was to be deposited, thirdly, that the applicant was shown to be sitting in the branch when the servant of the informant arrived at the bank along with Deokate to deposit the amount, and fourthly, that after the amount was deposited, the applicant fled from the branch on the pretext of bringing the cheque book. Apart from these, there is nothing on record to show that the present applicant has actually met the complainant or offered him to repay his loan and earn some interest. He submits that, the entire part of the offence has been attributed to Accused No. 1 – Deokate and said Deokate has been released on bail by the Trial Court. 5. The learned APP, however, opposes the application and submits that the present applicant was instrumental in the commission of the offence, as he had provided his own bank account for commission of the crime. He further submits that the amount deposited in the said account was immediately withdrawn by the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the role attributed to the present applicant is at par with that of Accused No. 1 – Deokate. He further submits that the applicant has two other antecedents. It is also submitted that the 5 63BA1463.2026.odt amount involved in the offence has not yet been recovered. On these grounds, the learned APP prays for dismissal of the present application. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for the complainant supports the submissions made by the learned APP and prays for dismissal of the application. 7. No doubt, the applicant’s account was used for depositing the amount, and the story allegedly narrated to the complainant revolved around the loan account obtained by the present applicant. However, the role attributed to Deokate in convincing the complainant to repay the loan amount and earn some interest has not been attributed to the present applicant. Secondly, the amount which was to be deposited in the applicant’s account on 18.03.2026 by the complainant was handed over to the servant of the complainant, who had accompanied Deokate to the branch. It was in the presence of Deokate that the amount was deposited in the said account. The prosecution is entirely silent as to who had actually withdrawn the amount i.e. whether it was withdrawn by the present applicant alone or whether Deokate had also accompanied him. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the present applicant was the beneficiary of the amount. Thus, comparatively, the role attributed to the present applicant is of a lesser degree than the role attributed to Deokate. Further, the mere existence 6 63BA1463.2026.odt of criminal antecedents cannot, by itself, deprive this Court of its discretion to grant bail to the accused. The apprehension that the applicant may indulge in a similar offence can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. Thus, I am satisfied that the law of parity can be applied and that the present application can be allowed. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER [i] The Application is allowed. [ii] The Applicant be released on bail in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 0154 of 2026 registered with Jamkhed Police Station, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahilyanagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 316(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount on the following condition. a] The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on first Monday of every month. b] The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. 8. The Application stands disposed of. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 18:51:27