P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 728 OF 2026 Mr. Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1750 OF 2026 Mr. Ulahanathan Arunachalam @ Arun Bhai …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Shailesh Kumar with Mr. Manoj Raut for the Applicants. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Bajirao Naik, PI, Unit 11, EOW, Mumbai, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicants, who are Original Accused Nos.4 and 6 (‘A4’ and ‘A6’) respectively, seeking their release on bail in Cr.No.68/2025, registered with Dadar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) on the report dated 15.02.2025 filed by Devarshi Shishirkumar Ghosh and, subsequently, transferred to Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’), Unit XI, Banking -3 and, re-registered as Cr.No.17/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 344, 340, 338, 336(2) (3), 317, 238 and 61(2) of BNS. Page 1 of 5 P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC 3. The prosecution case is that, at the relevant time, the Accused No.1 Hitesh Mehta (A1) was working as General Manager and Head Accountant with New India Co-operative Bank Ltd. He was in possession of Rs.122 Crores of the bank as its trustee. It is alleged that A1 illegally withdrew that amount of Rs.122 Crores from time to time and gave it to the co-accused persons as under :- Name of Accused Amount alleged EOW Label : Beneficiary Dharmesh Paun (A2) Rs.41.00 Crores YES Arunachalam (A6) Rs.40.00 Crores YES Hiren Bhanushali Rs.24.00 Crores YES Javed Iqbal Azam Rs.18.00 Crores YES Ajay Singh Rathore Rs.7.50 Crores YES Kapil Dedhia Rs.6.00 Crores YES Pawan Jaiswal Rs.3.10 Crores YES Rajeev Ranjan Pandey Rs.2.35 Crores YES Gauri Bhanu Rs.2.00 Crores YES Abhimanyu Bhuyan (A3) Rs.1.00 Cores YES Shoukat Jamadar Rs.0.35 Crores YES Total alleged benefit Rs.145.30 Crores Therefore, Mr. Devarshi Ghosh, the then Chief Accountant Officer, New India Co-operative Bank Ltd., Prabhadevi lodged the report and it led to registration of the aforesaid crime. During investigation, police recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. Co-accused Hiren Bhanushali absconded to United Kingdom. On completion of investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet. It was followed by supplementary charge-sheet and additional supplementary charge-sheet. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court declined to release the applicants on bail. Hence, these Applications. Page 2 of 5 P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC 4. Mr. Kumar, the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that, the case of the prosecution is that A6 had received Rs.40 Crores from A1. However, the statement given by A1 during the course of investigation claims that A1 had allegedly given Rs.33 Crores to A6. Said inconsistency creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case against A6. It is the case of the prosecution that applicant Manohar Maruthuvar (A4) is son of A6. Mr. Kumar submitted that as per the prosecution case, A4 was only present when the A1 had given the alleged amount to A6. As such, A4 has no role in this crime nor he is the beneficiary. Mr. Kumar highlighted that A2 – Dharmesh Paun, the beneficiary of Rs.41 Crores, has been released on bail on medical grounds, by the trial Court. Javed Iqbal Azam (A5) had allegedly received Rs.18 Crores and he has been released on bail by the Sessions Court. Rest of the accused are also granted bail. Therefore, he urged to release the applicants on bail on principle of parity. 5. In reply, Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP submitted that huge amount of money has been siphoned by A1 with the help of all the co-accused persons. The material on record clearly show that the said amount was given to A6 by the A1 in the office of A4. As such, there is a prima facie case against both the applicants and, they are not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered these submissions. Insofar as A4 is concerned, the material on record indicates that the amount was given to A6 by A1 in the presence of A4. As per the record, A4 has two business firms namely M/s. Bliss Enterprises and M/s. Rashmi Enterprises. The witness Prem Rawal has disclosed that, intermittently, both the applicants used to give him Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh to deposit in the bank account of the aforesaid firms P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC which the accused father and son used to transfer in other bank accounts. However, Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicants states that the said transactions through the bank accounts of the said companies are not more than Rs.1.10 Crores. This contention is not controverted by the I.O., who is present today. In this background, A4 is entitled to be released on bail. 7. However, considering that A6 had established unholy alliance with A1 to misappropriate Rs.40 Crores and thus, caused huge loss of public money to the bank, he is not entitled for bail. 8. As a result, the B.A. No.1750/2026 filed by Mr. Ulahanathan Arunachalam @ Arun Bhai, is rejected and, B. A. No.728 of 2026 filed by Mr. Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar, is allowed on the following terms and conditions :- (i) The applicant – Mr. Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar be released on bail in Cr.No.68/2025 initially registered with Dadar Police Station, Mumbai and subsequently re-registered with Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’), Unit XI, Banking -3 as Cr.No.17/2025, on his executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’), Unit XI, Banking -3 on 1st day of each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court. Page 4 of 5 P.H. JAYANI 908 BA728.2026.DOC (iv) The applicant shall not leave Mumbai till conclusion of the trial. He shall surrender his passport with the I.O. (v) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (vi) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (vii) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for which he has been arraigned in this case. (viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 9. At this stage, as requested by Mr. Kumar, the applicant - Mr. Manohar Arunachalam Maruthuvar is granted four weeks time to furnish the surety from the date of his release from jail. Till then, the applicant be released on bail on his executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and, depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of furnishing the surety. On furnishing such surety/ies, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be returned. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.16 17:03:51 +0530