Allowed¶29

Sanjay Shankar Shirwardhankar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Jul 2025ABA/2770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted; Bombay High Court; ABA No.2770 of 2024; Sanjay Shankar Shriwardhankar; Gram Sevak; Gram Panchayat fund misappropriation; Section 409 IPC; Section 34 IPC; CR No.21 of 2024; Dighi Sagari Police Station; Raigad; unexplained delay in FIR; audit report not submitted to CEO; Block Development Officer; Panchayat Samiti; co-accused parity ABA No.1428 of 2024; interim protection order 14 October 2024 confirmed; prosecution did not seek custody; R.N. Laddha, J.; decided 1 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim protection order dated 14 October 2024 confirmed, subject to conditions of continued cooperation with the investigation and no influencing of witnesses or tampering with prosecution evidence. ¶29

Sanjay Shankar Shirwardhankar vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, having apprehended arrest in CR No.21 of 2024 (Dighi Sagari Police Station, Raigad) for offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Court's answer

The anticipatory bail application is allowed and the interim order dated 14 October 2024 is confirmed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Bail is conditioned on the applicant continuing to cooperate with the investigation and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with prosecution evidence.

¶30

Key takeaways

The FIR was registered nearly a decade after the alleged misappropriation and the delay in lodging it remains unexplained.ratio¶23
The audit report was not submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat as mandated by the relevant statutory provisions; instead the Block Development Officer relied upon it to initiate the FIR.ratio¶23
On instructions from the investigating officer, the learned APP informed the Court that the applicant had attended the police station, cooperated with the investigation, and the prosecution does not want his custody.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.N. Laddha, J.) allowed anticipatory bail to a retired Gram Sevak (Dighi Group Gram Panchayat, 2011-2014) apprehending arrest in CR No.21 of 2024, Dighi Sagari Police Station, Raigad, for offences under Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC arising from alleged misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, nearly a decade after the alleged acts and the delay remained unexplained; the audit report was not submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat as mandated, the BDO instead relying on it to initiate the FIR. The co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail (ABA No.1428 of 2024, 7 October 2024); the applicant had attended the police station and cooperated pursuant to the interim protection order dated 14 October 2024, and the prosecution did not seek his custody. The interim order dated 14 October 2024 was confirmed, with conditions to continue cooperating with the investigation and not to influence witnesses or tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶1

SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES JOHNSON Date: 2025.07.02 GONSALVES 20:27:01 +0530

¶2

22.aba2770-24.docx

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Anticipatory Bail Application No.2770 of 2024

¶6

Sanjay Shankar Shriwardhankar Aged: 59 years, Occ. Retired, R/o. at Post. Borlipanchatan, Tal. Shriwardhan, Dist. Raigad

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra through the Dighi Sagari Police Station, Borlipanchatan, Tal. Shrivardhan, Dist. Raigad

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

Mr Balwant Salunkhe, for the applicant. Mr MG Patil, APP, for the respondent/ State.

¶12

IO API Hanumant Dada Shinde, Dighe Sagari Police Station, Raigad, is present.

¶13

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 1 July 2025.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent/ State.

¶16

By this application, the applicant is seeking relief of anticipatory bail as he apprehends arrest in connection with CR

Page 1 of 3

1 July 2025

22.aba2770-24.docx

No.21 of 2024 dated 1 March 2024, registered at Dighi Sagari Police Station, Raigad, for the offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The FIR, lodged at the instance of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, alleges that the applicant, who served as the Gram Sevak between the period 2011 to 2014, was involved in the misappropriation of funds related to the Gram Panchayat.

¶23

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 7 October 2024 in ABA No.1428 of 2024. The alleged misappropriation pertains to the period between 2011 and 2014, during which the applicant was serving as a Gramsevak of the Dighi Group Gram Panchayat. The FIR was registered nearly a decade after the alleged misappropriation, and the delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained. Furthermore, the audit report was not submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat as mandated by the relevant statutory provisions. Instead, the Block Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti relied upon the audit report to initiate the registration of the FIR. Moreover, the learned APP, on instructions from the investigating officer present in the Court, informs the Court that the applicant has attended the police station and has

Page 2 of 3

1 July 2025

22.aba2770-24.docx

cooperated with the investigation as directed by this Court vide passing an interim protection order dated 14 October 2024. Now, the prosecution does not want the custody of the applicant.

¶29

In light of the above, the application is allowed. The interim order dated 14 October 2024 is confirmed.

¶30

The applicant shall continue to cooperate with the investigation and shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶31

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

1 July 2025

Sanjay Shankar Shirwardhankar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Shankar Shirwardhankar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs Sangita Raju Changaudar vs Shri Basavraj Daryappa Bagli

Sushil Keshavrao Wghmare vs the State of Maharashtra

Munavar Abid Khan vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sharad Shrinivas Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Ali Sabir Shaikh and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra

Xyz vs State of Maharashtra