Dismissed¶19

Ravindra S/O Sambhaji Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Hudkeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Bombay HC18 Mar 2026ABA/212/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Criminal Application (ABA) No.212 of 2026; decided 16.04.2026 by Rajnish R. Vyas, J.; applicant Ravindra Sambhaji Waghmare (accused no.2), advocate M.V. Rai; respondent State of Maharashtra, APP C.A. Lokhande. Anticipatory-bail-type application regarding Crime No.319/2026, P.S. Ramnagar, Chandrapur; offences under Sections 473, 472, 471, 468, 464, 465, 406, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC; job-fraud allegations involving Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 8,50,000/- from informant and Rs. 1,31,60,000/- in total; applicant allegedly took candidates to Kolkata training centres; delay in FIR held not itself a ground for bail; application rejected.

What did the court decide?

The statements of witnesses clearly show that the applicant has accepted the amounts from one of the candidates. ¶18

Ravindra S/O Sambhaji Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Hudkeshwar, Dist. Nagpur — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No.319/2026 registered with Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur, should be released on bail in advance of arrest. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The statements of witnesses clearly show that the applicant has accepted the amounts from one of the candidates.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Witnesses have specifically stated the role performed by the present applicant, namely giving assurance, acceptance of amount and taking the candidates to Kolkata and further to different training centres; the forged documents are part of the case diary and the investigation is at an initial stage.

¶18

Key takeaways

Though there is delay in lodging the First Information Report, its contents show that repeated demands were made by all the applicants for return of amounts which was not honoured; delay in lodging the First Information Report may not itself be a ground for allowing the bail application.ratio¶18
Considering the seriousness of the matter and the amount involved, the Court is not inclined to allow the present application, which is accordingly rejected.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application apprehending arrest — rejected. The applicant (accused no.2), apprehending arrest in Crime No.319/2026 registered at Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur for offences punishable under Sections 473, 472, 471, 468, 464, 465, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC, approached the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The FIR by informant Kaustub Vilas Ade alleged that in 2014 the accused, under pretext of providing jobs, took Rs. 50,000/- initially and ultimately Rs. 8,50,000/- from the informant and a total of Rs. 1,31,60,000/- from various persons, took candidates to Kolkata for purported training and issued bogus certificates and a bogus police-verification letter. Holding that witness statements clearly showed the applicant had accepted amounts and that witnesses specifically deposed to his role — assurance, acceptance of amount, taking candidates to Kolkata and different training centres — with forged documents in the case diary and investigation at an initial stage, the Court held that delay in lodging the FIR may not itself be a ground for allowing the bail application, and, considering the seriousness of the matter and the amount involved, rejected the application (Rajnish R. Vyas, J.).

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5934

¶2

34 aba212.26.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.212 OF 2026 Ravindra s/o Sambhaji Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

Shri M.V. Rai, Advocate for applicant. Shri C.A. Lokhande, AGP / APP for respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 16.04.2026.

¶9

Apprehending the arrest in connection with Crime No.319/2026 registered with Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 473, 472, 471, 468, 464, 465, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), the applicant/accused no.2 has approached this Court.

¶10

The report was lodged by the informant named, Kaustub Vilas Ade. In the First Information Report, it has been alleged that in the year 2014, all the accused persons, under pretext of providing him a job, accepted an amount of ₹50,000/- initially and finally 8,50,000/-. It is further₹ alleged that under the same pretext, from various persons, total amount of 1,31,60,000/- was obtained. It was alleged₹ in the First Information Report that thereafter all the candidates were informed that they would have to undergo certain training as the candidates were selected and, therefore, all were taken to Kolkata by flight. In the said flight, the applicant and Surendra Ramkrishn

¶11

34 aba212.26.odt

¶12

¶13

Tenang/accused no.3 were also present. It was alleged that at Kolkata the informant and other candidates were taken to a hotel and thereafter various training schools and even the certificate was handed over to them. It was further alleged that bogus letter for police verification was also given to them. According to the First Information Report, the applicant stayed at Kolkata for 1 ½ year but thereafter the accused person did not contact him. It was further alleged in the First Information Report that though repeated request were made to accused No.1 – Mujibur Latif Qureshi, he did not return the amount accepted. The informant also came to know that said Qureshi was lodged in Nanded Jail since last one year as he had committed similar types of offences. It is in this background, the First Information Report was lodged.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report. He submitted that the conduct of informant in not approaching the police authority within reasonable period speaks volume for itself. He submitted that there is absolutely no material available on record to show that applicant has accepted any amount.

¶15

Per contra, learned APP has submitted that the allegations made against the present applicant are of serious nature. A categorical statement is made in the First Information Report by the informant that in the year 2014 the present applicant, alongwith others, have demanded the amount of 8,50,000/-. He further submitted that in First₹

¶16

3 34 aba212.26.odt

¶17

Information Report it is stated that several persons were duped under pretext of giving the job and the amount involved is 1,31,60,000/-. He also submitted that there was₹ absolutely no reason for the applicant to accompany the informant and other persons to Kolkata and taking them to various training centres. According to the learned APP, even bogus certificates were issued in their favour. To buttress his contention, he has produced the case diary for my perusal.

¶18

The statements of witnesses clearly show that the applicant has accepted the amounts from one of the candidates. The forged documents are also part of the case diary. The witnesses have specifically stated about the role performed by the present applicant i.e. assurance given by the present applicant, acceptance of amount and taking them to Kolkata and further to different training centres. The investigation is at initial stage. Though there is a delay in lodging First Information Report but the contents of First Information Report itself show that repeated demands were made by all the applicants for return of amounts, which was not honoured. Delay in lodging First Information Report may not itself be a ground for allowing the bail application.

¶19

Considering the seriousness of matter and the amount involved, I am not inclined to allow the present application. Hence, application is rejected.

¶20

(Rajnish R. Vyas, J.)

¶21

Wagh

Ravindra S/O Sambhaji Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Hudkeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Sambhaji Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Hudkeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shakti S/O Sheshrao Kanake vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Pandharkawada, Dist. Yavatmal

Mohammad Parvez Mohammad Mazrul Haque vs State of Maharsahatra Thr Pso Ps Durgapur Tah and Dist Chandrapur

Shaikh Moinuddin Shaikh Ajimuddin vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Khamgaon Rural Dist. Buldhana

Sharad Damodhar Surkar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Allipur, Tah. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha

Nazirkha Ahamadkha Pathan vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Umarkhed Tah Umarkhed Dist Yavatmal

Lokesh Madanmohan Yelne vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Tah and Dist. Bhandara