Vishal Haridas Mehetre vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.65/2018 registered with Kotwali Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 407, 409, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3 of MPID Act, 1999.

¶16

The Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime. The FIR was based on the audit report submitted by the Auditor, which has itself been set aside by the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative

¶17

2 905.ABA-161-2026.doc

¶18

Society, Nashik, thereby setting aside the inquiry conducted under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the report dated 31.03.2022. On the basis of that report, FIR No. 65/2018 was filed, though the Applicant had served as Branch Manager of the Sanstha only from 01.04.2000 to 01.09.2011, and had worked to the satisfaction of her seniors. There are no allegations of the Applicant being involved in any misappropriation. The Applicant has not been held responsible for committing any fraud, nor was she a beneficiary of any fraudulent loan sanctioned by the said Cooperative Society. The learned Counsel further relies upon the order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 895/2024, wherein the FIR against another Director, Dilip Nimbalkar, and others was quashed on the very same grounds that the audit report on the basis of which the FIR was filed had itself been set aside by the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Nashik, dated 08.11.2023. A copy of the order passed by this Court quashing the FIR against the other directors in Criminal Writ Petition NO. 895/2024 is placed on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The learned Counsel further submits that the Applicant is not having criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the Applicant prays for protection.

¶19

As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the present application on the ground that there is direct involvement of the Applicant shown in the inquiry report under Section 88 of the

¶20

3 905.ABA-161-2026.doc

¶21

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. However, the learned APP concedes that the said inquiry was itself set aside by the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik, dated 08.11.2023, and that this Court has already quashed and set aside the FIR insofar as the other Directors are concerned, on the very same ground.

¶22

Thus, taking into consideration that the inquiry report under Section 88 of the MCS Act dated 21.03.2022, which formed the basis of filing the present FIR No. 65/2018, has itself been set aside by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, and also taking into consideration that this Court has already quashed and set aside the FIR insofar as the other Directors are concerned on the very same ground, I am inclined to protect the Applicant. The apprehension of the learned APP can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence the following order :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

( i ) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Vishal Haridas Mehetre in connection with Crime No.65/2018 registered with Kotwali Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 407, 409, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3 of MPID Act, 1999, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions :

¶25

(a) The Applicant shall attend Kotwali Police Station, District Ahmednagar on every Saturday between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm. and

¶26

4 905.ABA-161-2026.doc

¶27

thereafter as when called by the Investigating Officer, till filing of the charge-sheet.

¶28

(b) The Applicant shall deposit his passport to the Investigating Officer and shall not leave the Country without permission.

¶29

(c) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not influence the witnesses.

¶30

(d) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two of the near relatives.

¶31

(e) A single violation of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

¶32

( ii ) The application is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of.

¶33

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

¶34

NAJEEB..

Vishal Haridas Mehetre v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Haridas Mehetre 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Chhaganrao Prabhale vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinkar Nana Khedkar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ravikiran Vishnu Sanap vs Maruti Nivrutti Lad and Another

Bharabha Mangubhai Rabari vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sandip Bhanudas Kotkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Lahanu Bhana Alias Bana Yele vs the State of Maharashtra