Akshay Santosh Nijlewar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC7 Jan 2025ABA/206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail batch, Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench, Arun R. Pedneker J., 13 January 2025; ABA/265/2024, ABA/183/2024, ABA/206/2024, ABA/238/2024, ABA/260/2024, ABA/292/2024, ABA/312/2024, ABA/313/2024, ABA/335/2024, Criminal Application 1289 of 2024 in ABA/273/2024; credit society; Kharjule family control; allegedly fabricated loans to own family members; Directors not functioning / not beneficiaries; earlier rejection of Triveni Kharjule's ABA on 28.03.2024; interim protection continued till 20.01.2025; APP to detail loan beneficiaries and non-cooperation; applicants to cooperate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of interim relief, if any, till 20.01.2025, subject to the applicants cooperating with the investigation; matters adjourned to 20.01.2025 with directions to the learned APP. ¶¶74

Akshay Santosh Nijlewar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Continuation of interim relief, if any, till 20.01.2025, subject to the applicants cooperating with the investigation; matters adjourned to 20.01.2025 with directions to the learned APP.

¶¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail / continuation of interim protection in the credit-society fabricated-loan case, their position having been distinguished by this court from that of the Kharjule family. +2 more

¶¶74

Court's answer

Interim relief, if any, granted to the applicants shall continue till 20.01.2025.

¶¶74

Ratio / Principle

The learned APP is directed to provide details of the beneficiaries of the loan transactions and to point out on the next date whether any Director or their family members or relatives were benefited from the transactions/loans.

¶¶70

Key takeaways

The learned APP is to provide details regarding non-cooperation wherever there is none by the applicants in the investigation, and meanwhile the applicants are to cooperate with the investigation.ratio¶¶75
The matters stand over to 20.01.2025 for further consideration.ratio¶¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court (Arun R. Pedneker, J., 13.01.2025) on a batch of nine anticipatory bail applications (ABA Nos. 265, 183, 206, 238, 260, 292, 312, 313 and 335 of 2024) together with Criminal Application No. 1289 of 2024 in ABA/273/2024, filed by persons connected with a credit society whose affairs are alleged to have been controlled by the Kharjule family. The court noted that by order dated 28.03.2024 in ABA/273/2024 it had rejected the anticipatory bail application of Triveni Kharjule, who was President at the relevant time, and that it had earlier granted interim protection to the present applicants while distinguishing their case from that of the Kharjule family. Counsel contended that the President, Vice-President, Secretary and two Directors belonged to one family, that allegedly fabricated loans were given by the Kharjule family to their own members, and that the other Directors, though on record, were not functioning and were not beneficiaries; in ABA/265/2024 it was further contended that the applicant was not a Director at the relevant time. The court directed the learned APP to furnish details of the beneficiaries of the loan transactions, of any benefit to Directors or their family members or relatives, and of non-cooperation (wherever there is none) by the applicants with the investigation. Matters stood over to 20.01.2025; interim relief, if any, to continue till then; applicants meanwhile to cooperate with the investigation.

¶1

1 43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

43 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 265 OF 2024

¶4

SIYYA W/O RAHUL CHANDNANI VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. R. G. Dodya i/b. Mr. Devang Deshmukh APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶7

WITH

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2024

¶9

ALKA W/O SANTOSH KHANDARE

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶12

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mahesh P. Kale APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶13

WITH

¶14

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 2024

¶15

AKSHAY SANTOSH NIJLEWAR VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶17

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shekade Shashikant E APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶18

WITH

¶19

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2024

¶20

SHIRISH KANTARAO JAHANGIRDAR

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶23

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhishek A. Zade

¶24

2 43

¶25

APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶26

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2024

¶27

ANJU W/O SUDHIR KATKE VERSUS

¶28

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶29

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Majit S. Shaikh Deshmukh Sachin S. APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶30

WITH

¶31

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 292 OF 2024

¶32

SHITAL W/O MANGESH LOLGE

¶33

VERSUS

¶34

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶35

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shinde Dhananjay M. APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶36

WITH

¶37

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2024

¶38

MINAKSHI W/O BHAGWAN GUNJKAR VERSUS

¶39

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶40

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kawade Shrikant G. APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶41

WITH

¶42

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 313 OF 2024

¶43

GAYATRI W/O GANESH MAHAMUNE VERSUS

¶44

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶45

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kawade Shrikant G. APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶46

3 43

¶47

WITH

¶48

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 335 OF 2024

¶49

VARSHA W/O BHARATBHUSHAN AGRAWAL

¶50

VERSUS

¶51

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶52

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. R. G. Dodya i/b. Mr. Devang Deshmukh APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶53

WITH

¶54

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1289 OF 2024

¶55

IN ABA/273/2024

¶56

TRIVENI W/O. DHARMENDRA KHARJULE VERSUS

¶57

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶58

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nagargoje Prabhakar Nathrao APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶59

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 13^th JANUARY, 2025

¶60

PER COURT:

¶61

Heard.

¶62

It appears that this court by order dated 28.03.2024, in ABA/273/2024, rejected the anticipatory bail application of Triveni

¶63

Kharjule, as she was the President at the relevant time. From the record it

¶64

also appears that this court had granted interim protection to the present

¶65

4 43

¶66

applicants and has distinguished the case of the present applicants from that of the Kharjule family.

¶67

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire credit society was controlled by the Kharjule family, wherein the President, Vice-Precident, Secretary and two of the Directors belong to one family and the allegedly fabricated loans were given by the Kharjule family to their own family members.

¶68

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the other Directors though on record but were not functioning and, as such, the Directors are not beneficiaries to the transactions.

¶69

In ABA/265/2024 the learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that she was not the Director at the relevant time.

¶70

Be that as it may, the learned APP to provide details of the beneficiaries of the loan transactions. The learned APP to point out on the next date as to any of the Directors or their family members or relatives were benefited from the transactions / loan given.

¶71

The learned APP also to provide details as regards the non cooperation wherever there is no non cooperation of the applicants in the matters of investigation.

¶72

5 43

¶73

Stand over to 20.01.2025.

¶74

Interim relief, if any, to continue till then.

¶75

Meanwhile, the applicants to cooperate with the investigation.

¶76

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]

¶77

marathe

Akshay Santosh Nijlewar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Santosh Nijlewar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer Waghur Dam and Anr. vs Thecollector, Jalgaon and Ors.

Sundar Shrirang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suryakant @ Anna Ramchandra Arya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anotehr

Yuvraj Ankush Sirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shabana W/O Aslam Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dattu @ Dattatray Anandrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra