Satish Nanasaheb Bhamare vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 77 of 2026 dated 27.02.2026, registered with Shirpur City Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 409, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶15

The prosecution case is that the applicant, while working as a Gram Sevak in Gram Panchayat of village Mukhed Balkuve, during the period from 09.01.2021 to 30.11.2022, committed misappropriation of public funds, namely Gram Nidhi and Water

¶16

1/4

¶17

Jhs/

¶18

54 ABA NO. 594 OF 2026

¶19

Supply funds, to the tune of Rs. 7,22,133/-. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, misappropriation of Rs. 25,686/- is attributed to him. The Extension Officer of the Gram Panchayat has lodged the FIR.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated and that the alleged misappropriation is merely a discrepancy in accounts. It is submitted that the amount alleged to have been irregularly withdrawn has already been deposited by the applicant on different dates, i.e., Rs. 12,843/- on 22.08.2024 and Rs. 12,843/- on 17.09.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has roots in society, is not a flight risk, and is ready to abide by any conditions.

¶21

As against this, learned APP strongly opposes the application and submits that the applicant has committed serious offences involving misappropriation of public funds meant for the welfare of villagers. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents, including Crime Nos. 15 of 2025 and 20 of 2025 for similar offences, and another offence registered in the year 2018 under the Prevention of Corruption Act being Crime No. 43 of 2018. It is, therefore, contended that there is a likelihood of the applicant committing similar offences and the application deserves to be rejected.

¶22

2/4

¶23

Jhs/

¶24

54 ABA NO. 594 OF 2026

¶25

I have gone through the investigation papers. It appears that the investigation is almost complete, except for filing of the chargesheet. The material placed on record indicates that the applicant has already deposited the entire amount of Rs. 25,686/- on different dates. Nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the applicant. It is settled law that mere criminal antecedents by themselves do not preclude the Court from exercising discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 482 of the BNSS. Considering the nature of allegations and the conduct of the applicant in depositing the amount, the applicant deserves protection. The apprehensions of the prosecution can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶26

Hence, the following order :

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

i. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶29

ii. In the event of arrest of the applicant – Satish Nanasaheb Bhamare, he shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, in connection with FIR No. 77 of 2026 registered with Shirpur City Police Station, District Dhule, for the aforesaid offences, on the following conditions :

¶30

A) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station and report to the Investigating Officer on 27th and 28th April, 2026 and 4th and 5th May, 2026 between

¶31

3/4

¶32

Jhs/

¶33

54 ABA NO. 594 OF 2026

¶34

12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m., and thereafter as and when called.

¶35

B) The applicant shall also cooperate with the investigation.

¶36

C) The applicant shall not commit any offence of similar nature.

¶37

D) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

¶38

E) The Applicant shall furnish copies of his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card to the Investigating Officer along with the addresses and mobile numbers of two nearest relatives.

¶39

Needless to state that violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or involvement in any other offence shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted hereinabove.

¶40

The observations made herein are prima facie and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits.

¶41

In view of the above, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶42

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )

¶43

4/4

¶44

Jhs/

Satish Nanasaheb Bhamare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Nanasaheb Bhamare 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Gaffar Abdul Habib Thekiya vs the State of Maharashtra

Lasina Sudhakar Vattakandi through G P a Anand Kishor Sonwal vs Mayuri Sudhirkumar Shah and Another

Kailash Vaijanath Sakhare vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anuja Kashyap Kirtikar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashwini Vishal Patil vs Vishal Vikram Patil

Ashwini Vishal Patil vs Vishal S/O Vikram Patil