The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Dnyanoba Kute and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Dnyanoba Kute and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with the direction that the prosecution is entitled to effect the arrest of the respondents after following the due procedure of Law; the prayer for quashing of the impugned order was not granted as such.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution may arrest the respondents/accused notwithstanding the impugned order dated 15.06.2024 declaring their arrest illegal and releasing them on bail — i.e., whether the State's prayer for quashing of that order ought to be allowed.

Court's answer

There is no prohibition for the prosecution to arrest the respondents/accused.

Ratio / Principle

While arresting the respondents, the prosecution is required to follow and take care of the provisions of Law; the prosecution is entitled to effect the arrest of the respondents after following the due procedure of Law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.), Criminal Writ Petition No. 1816 of 2024, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Dnyanoba Kute & Anr., decided 18.09.2025: The State challenged orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Crime No.209/2024 (Majalgaon City Police Station; offences under Sections 420, 409 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, arising from alleged misappropriation in a depositors' credit society), whereby the police custody remand report was rejected on 13.06.2024, the respondents were placed under house arrest till 14.06.2024, and by order dated 15.06.2024 their arrest was declared illegal and they were released on bail — an order which, per the learned APP, erred in relying on Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2024) 4 SCC 749. Held: there is no prohibition on the prosecution arresting the respondents/accused, provided it follows and takes care of the provisions of Law. Petition disposed of, leaving the prosecution free to effect arrest after following due procedure.

2025:BHC-AUG:25473

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

932 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1816 OF 2024

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS

SURESH DNYANOBA KUTE AND ANOTHER

Mr.S.B.Jadhav, APP for the petitioner/State. Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

PER COURT :

Heard the learned APP for the petitioners/State and the learned Advocate for the Respondents.

The petitioners/State is challenging the order dated

15.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Crime No.209/2024, registered at Majalgaon City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

khs/Sept,2025/1816

2 -

According to the petitioners, one informant namely Balasaheb Pandurang Dhere had filed complaint in respect of misappropriation done in one Dnyanradha Multi State Co-operative Credit Society, Dist. Beed, Majalgaon Branch. The crime was registered against respondent No.1 and one unknown person. The petitioners/State had arrested respondents on 07.06.2024. When respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were brought before the Sessions Court at Majalgaon, Dist Beed, at that time, the prosecution got their custody remand till 13.06.2024 According to the petitioners/State, the respondents were arrested following the due process of Law. On 13.06.2024, the Investigating Officer again sought custodial remand of the respondents. however, the Trial Court, on the same day vide impugned order was pleased to reject the remand report for police custody of both the respondents and directed to keep both the respondents under house arrest in the house of respondent No.1 in Beed City till 14.06.2024. Respondents had also filed an application alleging that their arrest is illegal and their application for bail be allowed. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 15.06.2024, declared that the arrest of both the respondents is illegal and released them on bail. The said order is sought to be challenged by the petitioners in these proceedings on the

khs/Sept,2025/1816

3 -

ground that the offences committed by the Accused persons are economic offences and alleged to be serious in nature. Apart from the instant crime, there are other crimes already registered against them. According to the learned APP, the Police machinery has followed the due procedure while arresting them. They were arrested within 24 hours of the report. The learned APP for the petitioners states that the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has erroneously relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priya Indoria Versus State of Karnataka [(2024) 4 SCC 749], on the ground that the facts of the instant case ares totally different than the case in hand, which is relied upon by the petitioners. Accordingly, quashing of the impugned order by allowing the instant petition, is prayed by the learned APP.

According to the learned Advocate for the respondents, the judgment relied upon by the learned Sessions Court in Priya Indoria (supra) has been correctly applied and relied upon and further submits that if the prosecuting authority wants to arrest the respondents, they can do so, however by following the appropriate procedure of Law as they are already in custody. According to him, this order shall not

khs/Sept,2025/1816

come in the way of prosecution while arresting them again. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition.

Considering the above, it is clear that there is no prohibition for the prosecution to arrest the respondents/accused. Subsequently, further while doing so, they are required to follow and take care of the provisions of Law.

In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of.

The prosecution is entitled to effect the arrest of the respondents after following the due procedure of Law.

khs/Sept,2025/1816