DIGVIJAYSINGH PRAVINSINGH RAJPUT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ABA/2332/2026 · 2026-09-11
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8188 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8188 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
920 ABA-2332-2026.DOC skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2332 OF 2026 Digvijaysingh Pravinsingh Rajput …Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr.Vikas Shivarkar, for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Ghag, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM:
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE :
11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shivarkar, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Ghag, learned APP for the State.
2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre- arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 335 of 2026 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is not involved in the crime. The account in which the amounts are alleged to be deposited is opened when the father of 11th September, 2026
920 ABA-2332-2026.DOC skt the First Informant was looking after the medical shop namely, Lotus Drugs Store. He submits that the Applicant has no antecedents and the Applicant will co-operate with the investigation and therefore the anticipatory bail be granted.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ghag, learned APP submits that the offence is very serious. He relies on the statement of Vikas Sunil Gaikwad dated 20th May 2026 and submits that the Applicant is involved in very serious crime.
5. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.2 of the
order dated 6th August 2026 passed by the learned District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Pimpri, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No. 991 of 2026 which read as under :-
2. It is the contention of the informant that the accused was employed in his shop named Lotus Drugs Store with him from 2019 to 2026. It is the case of the informant that amount of Rs. 52,54,532/- which was collected out of sale of medicine was transferred by the accused in his HDFC account No. 50100310836740. It is further alleged that the cash amount of Rs. Page 2 of 6 11th September, 2026
920 ABA-2332-2026.DOC skt 33,60,765/- collected out of sale of medicine was also misappropriated. It is alleged that total amount of Rs. 73,21,794/- was misappropriated by the present applicant. Cr. No. 335/2026 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 on the report of Dr. Shivdarshan Mohanlal Agarwal.”
6. Perusal of the record shows that the First Informant is a Doctor by profession and conducing an Hospital namely Lotus Multi Speciality Hospital and Lotus Drugs Store. The said Lotus Drugs Store, which is a medical shop, is a part of said Lotus Multi Speciality Hospital. The Applicant is working with the First Informant since the year 2013 on a salary of Rs.25,000/- and commission of 3% if sale exceeds Rs.5 Lakh per month and commission of 5% if sale exceeds Rs.10 Lakh per month. As the First Informant was having some doubt about the Applicant, he has instructed Vikas Sunil Gaikwad, who has been working as a Public Relation Officer in the hospital to also look after the said Lotus Drugs Store. Accordingly, he was doing the same since January
2026. At that time, he has noticed that in the said medical store, 11th September, 2026
920 ABA-2332-2026.DOC skt payment of bills are accepted on two QR codes. Therefore, he collected the information from the accountant of the hospital and he was informed that as far as medical store is concerned, there is only one QR Code. He further came to know that another QR Code is in the name of the Applicant and the Applicant was accepting the payment for purchase of medicines in his own account.
Accordingly, during the period of February 2019 to January 2026, he has received total payment of Rs.52,54,532/- as also total cash amount received of Rs. 33,60,765/- was also not deposited with the hospital. Thus, this is a very serious case where the offence is under Sections 316(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 of criminal breach of trust. 7. The Supreme Court in the decision of Nitin Jagannath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra1 has held that the anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. It has been further held that while exercising power to grant pre-arrest bail, the Court has to be very 1 5 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1489 11th September, 2026
920 ABA-2332-2026.DOC skt cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. 8. In the decision of State Vs. Anil Sharma2, the Supreme Court, while setting aside the order of pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable
order under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It has been held that effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. It has been further held that very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. 2 (1997) 7 SCC 187 11th September, 2026
920 ABA-2332-2026.DOC skt
9. In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.
10. The observations in this order are made for considering the present Anticipatory Bail Application. The learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove and shall decide the case on its own merits.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 11th September, 2026