Shashank S/O Ramnarayan Sahu vs State of Maharashtra Thr… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Shashank S/O Ramnarayan Sahu vs State of Maharashtra Thr… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, named as accused No.4 in Crime No. 144 of 2026 registered with Police Station Kalmeshwar for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest, should be granted anticipatory bail. +1 more

Court's answer

The allegations in the FIR are very specific: the applicant, working as a Field Assistant of Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited, collected the instalment amounts towards repayment of loans from the borrowers but did not deposit the same with the company; thus the allegations prima facie make out a case against the accused.

Ratio / Principle

The quantum of the amount involved, by itself, would not be a criterion for deciding the seriousness of the offence; hence the contention that the amount involved is meagre cannot support grant of anticipatory bail.

Key takeaways

Since a prima facie case is made out against the present applicant, the Court is not inclined to allow the application, and the application is rejected.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — application rejected. The applicant, named accused No.4 in Crime No. 144 of 2026 dated 17/02/2026 registered with Police Station Kalmeshwar (Tah. and Dist. Nagpur) for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest. Per the FIR of informant Nandkishor, Branch Manager of Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited, Kalmeshwar, the applicant worked as a Field Assistant obliged to collect loan instalments from borrowers and deposit them with the company; after borrowers complained of non-closure of accounts despite repayment, an inquiry found he had defalcated Rs.52,832/-. Ad-interim anticipatory bail had been granted by the Court on 04/05/2026, and the applicant had co-operated with the investigation. Rajnish R. Vyas, J.: the FIR allegations were very specific — the applicant collected the amounts but did not deposit them — and prima facie made out a case against him; further, the quantum of the amount, by itself, is not a criterion for deciding the seriousness of the offence. The application was accordingly rejected.

1 10-aba 285.2026.doc

2026:BHC-NAG:7207

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

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 285 OF 2026

( SHASHANK S/O RAMNARAYAN SAHU

VS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS KALMESHWAR TAH. AND DIST. NAGPUR )

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr. Y.R.Gyanchandani, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.M.R.Kavimandan, APP for respondent.

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : MAY 08, 2026

Apprehending arrest, in connection with Crime No. 144 of 2026 dated 17/02/2026, registered with Police Station Kalmeshwar, Tah. and District Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant who was named as accused No.4 has approached this Court.

The informant is one Nandkishor, who in the FIR has alleged that he is working on the post of Branch Manager with Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited, Kalmeshwar. He further alleged that the applicant was one of the employees/Field Assistants of the said company and was under an obligation to collect the installment amount for repayment of the loan from the customers and deposit the same with the said company. According to the FIR several complaints were received from the borrowers regarding non-closure of their account despite repayment of the loan amount and therefore, inquiry was

KOLHE

2 10-aba 285.2026.doc

conducted in which it was found that the applicant had defalcated amount of Rs.52,832/-.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not involved in the alleged misappropriation of the amount, which is very meagre, and therefore, he be protected. He further argued that this Court on 04/05/2026, has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to him and he has also attended and co-operated with the Investigating Agency.

Per contra, learned APP has opposed the application contending that the quantum of amount itself would not decide the seriousness of allegations.

With the help of respective counsels, I have gone through the record of the case. The allegations made in the FIR are very specific. The applicant was working as a Field Assistant in Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited and was under an obligation to collect the installment amounts towards repayment of loans from the borrowers and deposit the same with the said company. The FIR further shows that although the applicant had collected the amount, he did not deposit the same with the said company. Thus, the allegations prima facie make out a case against the accused. As regards the contention that amount involved is meagre, suffice it to say that the quantum of amount, by itself, would not be a criteria for deciding seriousness of the offence. As prima facie case is made against the present applicant, I am not inclined to allow the present application. Hence, the application is rejected.

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )

KOLHE

Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/05/2026 16:14:41