Sagar S/O Ashokrao Deshmukh vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Arvi Tq. Arvi Dist. Wardha

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.3/2026 registered with Police Station, Arvi, District Wardha for the offences punishable under Section 316(5), 318(2), 318(3) and 3(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant / accused no.1 has approached this Court. Total 5 accused are named in the First Information Report.

¶14

Reporter of the crime is one Irfan Khan Bashir Khan, who is Branch Manager of the Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. In short, it is the case of the reporter of the crime, who was attached with Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd as Branch Manager that the applicant /accused no.1 was working on the post of Sangam Manager/Field Assistant with the said Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. It was alleged that the applicant was under obligation to collect the amount of installment towards the repayment of loans from the

¶15

2 25 aba295.26.odt

¶16

borrowers and deposit with the said Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. It was further alleged that from 08.07.2024 to 08.10.2024 the applicant had collected the amount of ₹1,56,405/- in cash from 12 members for closure of loan but did not provide any receipt. It was further alleged that the said amount was not deposited with the branch of Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. It is in this background, the FIR came to be lodged.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that infact of Sangam Managers were not authorized to collect the amount of installments and therefore, it was the fault of the depositors to hand over the amount with the applicant. He has further submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the dispute involved is a purely of civil nature. He relied upon the decision of this Court (Principal Seat) in the case of Shyamsundar Radhyesham Agrawal Vs. State of Maharashtra (in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2633/2025 and connected matters decided on 25.11.2025) more particularly paras 32 and 34 and has contended that nothing has been shown by the investigating agency that his custodial interrogation is required. He further contended that amount involved is only 1,56,405/-₹ and therefore, his liberty be protected.

¶18

Per contra, learned APP has contended that the parameters for grant and rejection of anticipatory bail are clear. It is not a custodial interrogation which is only factor

¶19

25 aba295.26.odt

¶20

3

¶21

which is required to be looked into, the question is whether prima facie case is made out or not.

¶22

With the assistance of respective counsels, I have gone through the record. Allegations made in the FIR are very specific. The applicant though was working was Sangh Manager/Field Assistant with the Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd and was duty bound to deposit the collected amount from the customers with the said Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd, has not done so. Though amount may be 1,56,405/-₹ but fact remains that prima facie case is made out against the applicant. As far as observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No.2633/2025, suffice it to say that facts of those cases were totally different. Further, the Court has observed that fair balance is required to be maintained between societal interest and liberty of accused. It was further observed that if there is material to show that the accused may influence witnesses, destroy important documents or otherwise interfere with the investigation, the court will be slow in granting anticipatory bail. It was further observed that stage of investigation is also important factor.

¶23

As far as custodial interrogation is important the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529 has observed as under:

¶24

25 aba295.26.odt

¶25

4

¶26

“12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like Pocso and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.’

¶27

5 25 aba295.26.odt

¶28

Aforesaid observations would reveal that whether custodial interrogation is required or not is issue which is required to be answered by the jurisdictional magistrate. As prima facie case is made out and concern of victim also can not be ignored, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant would also not be in the interest of justice. Since, allegations are specific, I do not find any merits in the application. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The criminal application stands rejected.

¶31

(Rajnish R. Vyas, J.)

¶32

Wagh

Sagar S/O Ashokrao Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Arvi Tq. Arvi Dist. Wardha

Case brief

What is this about?

Sagar S/O Ashokrao Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Arvi Tq. Arvi Dist. Wardha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Mahadeo Ramji Rathod vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Pusad City, Dist. Yavatmal

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

Vrushabh S/O Ashok Kale vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Khadan, Akola Tah. and Dist. Akola

Nawed Khan Ahmad Khan vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Darwha, Tq. Darwha Dist. Yavatmal

Aditya S/O Digeshwar Dhait vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Armori Ps, Tah. Armori, Dist. Gadchiroli

Swapnil S/O Gajanan Kale vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Ram Nagar, Tah and Dist. Chandrapur