Ravindra S/O Madhusudan Girolkar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Ner Dist. Yavatmal

1 1-ABA-901-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.901/2025

Ravindra S/o Madhusudan Girolkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ner, District Yavatmal

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

Mr. A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for Applicant Mr. Ashish Kadukar, APP for Non-applicant

¶7

CORAM: NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.

¶8

DATED : 26^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶9

Issue notice to the non-applicant, returnable on 04.12.2025.

¶10

The learned APP waives service of notice for non-applicant and seeks time to file reply. Time as sought is granted.

¶11

The applicant has filed the present application seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0485/2025, registered with Police Station Ner Parsopant, District Yavatmal, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 406, and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1999”).

¶12

The prosecution case, in brief, is that a complaint was lodged alleging several irregularities in

¶13

2 1-ABA-901-25.odt

¶14

the sanction and disbursement of loans to various borrowers, as reflected in the audit report of Ashtavinayak Credit Co-operative Society. It is alleged that, at the behest of the Directors of the Society, financial losses were caused to the institution during the period from the financial year 1991–92 up to 2023–24. The applicant has been arrayed as Accused No. 14 on the premise of his role as General Manager of the said Credit Co-operative Society, and it is alleged that he was more diligent in performing his duties as General Manager.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a special audit of the Society has been conducted, which indicates that the losses are primarily attributable to non-repayment of loans by several borrowers. It is emphasized that the applicant served as General Manager of the Society since 2008. It is further submitted that the applicant has been unwell since 2021, underwent bypass surgery, and resigned from the post of General Manager on 01.07.2024. Learned counsel contends that the applicant was never involved in the affairs of the Directors and acted under their supervision and directions. It is further submitted that the applicant has neither illegally nor wrongfully gained any benefit from the Society during his tenure. Being merely an employee, the applicant’s role was confined to executing instructions of the superior authorities, and, therefore, the alleged losses cannot be attributed to him. It is also submitted that

¶16

3 1-ABA-901-25.odt

¶17

the applicant is 58 years of age and suffers from agerelated ailments. In view of these circumstances, it is urged that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted.

¶18

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the application, contending that, being the former General Manager of the Society, the applicant may interfere with or obstruct the ongoing investigation or attempt to influence witnesses and investors. It is submitted that the investigation is in a preliminary stage and custodial interrogation may be required to unearth the role of all persons involved.

¶19

Upon anxious consideration of the rival submissions and examination of the material on record, this Court notes that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not shown to be a flight risk. The relevant audit report and connected documents are already in the possession of the Investigating Officer. The applicant’s tenure as General Manager, coupled with his advanced age and medical condition, are also relevant factors. At this stage, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the applicant is indispensable for the progress of investigation.

¶20

In the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for grant of ad-

¶21

4 1-ABA-901-25.odt

¶22

interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed to the extent indicated herein.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

I. In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No. 0485/2025, registered with Police Station Ner Parsopant, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 406, 477-A read with 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Act of 1999, the applicant shall be released on furnishing solvent surety of Rs.25,000/- with PR bond of like amount.

¶25

II. The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶26

IV. Interim protection shall operate till 04.12.2025.

¶27

(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)

¶28

MP Deshpande

¶29

Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 26/11/2025 18:11:28

Ravindra S/O Madhusudan Girolkar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Ner Dist. Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Madhusudan Girolkar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Ner Dist. Yavatmal

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

Satish @ Ramkishan Venkati Bhandarwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bharat Digambar Ghuge and Others vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Baban Nimse vs the State of Maharashtra

Jijabai Laxman Andhale and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dhondiram @ Kailas Jagannath Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rahul Vishnu Akolkar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another