Machindra Sadashiv Chandane vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Prashant S. Hagare, for the Applicant. Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent-State. A.P.I. S. B. Patil, Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural, present.

¶10

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 28 JANUARY 2026

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Hagare, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶13

Applicant and Ms. Newton, learned APP for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

¶14

By the present Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.958 of 2020 registered with the Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Page 1

Arjun

906-ABA-74-2025.DOC

The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.2 of the Order dated 17th December 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati District-Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.1204 of 2024, which reads as under :-

¶19

“2. In short case of prosecution is that, on 19/09/2020 first informant Shashank Divakar Patki, being auditor of Sangola Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. lodged his report to police station alleging that, he was duly appointed as auditor of the bank. In his audit, he found that on 29/01/2020, the accused No.1 i.e. branch manager of the bank, accused No. 4 i.e. cashier (who committed suicide on 17/07/2020) and accused No.5 i.e. secretary of patsanstha, have withdrawn cash amount of Rs.18 lac upon deposit receipt by way of loan. On 01/02/2020, the accused No.1 resigned, and accused No.2 was appointed as branch manager since 15/02/2020. It is alleged that on 31/03/2020, the accused No.2 to 5 sanctioned loan account No.402/17 for Rs.12,75,000/ and withdrawn cash amount of Rs.12,59,000/. It is further alleged that, on 22/06/2020 accused No. 2 to 5 withdrew cash amount of Rs.4 lac on deposit receipt by loan account No.403/10. Thereafter, on 15/07/2020 the loan account No.402/17 was closed by depositing amount of Rs.13,10,295/- by accused No. 2,4 and 5. It is further alleged that, on 12/08/2020 he made audit in said bank about treasury as per nanewari and panchnama dated 17/07/2020. As per panchnama, on 16/07/2020 cash amount of Rs.25,70,969/ was in treasury. However, when the accused No.2,3, peon Prakash Bhong and account holders of bank as panchas namely, Somnath Kumbhar, Balasaheb Bhong and Uttam Todkar, counted, the cash amount of Rs.8,43,312/ was only found in safe. As per panchnama, an amount of Rs. 17,27,657/ was not found in safe and that amount was misappropriated. Thus, the accused No.1 to 6 including present applicant, who is accused No. 6 being the

Page 2

Arjun

906-ABA-74-2025.DOC

president have made forgery in resolutions and documents of the bank and patsanstha and all accused, in connivance with each other, have dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs.39,27,657/- from said bank. Therefore, first informant lodged said report against all accused persons.”

¶24

It is the submission of Mr. Hagare, learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is not involved in the crime. To substantiate the said contention, he relies on the statement dated 20th September 2020 of Tejesh Maruti Hegde. He submits that, in any case, the Charge-sheet is filed and that a learned Single Judge has granted interim protection by Order dated 14th January 2025.

¶25

On the other hand, Ms. Newton, learned APP, submits that the offence is very serious. There are a total of six Accused. Three Accused have been arrested and granted regular bail. One Accused has been released on anticipatory bail and one Accused has passed away. She submits that the Applicant, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of the Patsanstha and, therefore, the Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.

¶26

Perusal of the record shows that the Charge-sheet has already been filed and, therefore, the investigation is completed.

Page 3

Arjun

906-ABA-74-2025.DOC

A learned Single Judge has already granted interim protection by Order dated 14th January 2025, which continues till date.

¶31

In any case, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶32

In view thereof, the following Order is passed:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Machindra Sadashiv Chandane, in connection with CR No.958 of 2020 registered with the Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural, he be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶35

(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on 4th February 2026 and 5th February 2026 between 11:00 am to 02:00 pm and thereafter as and necessary and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶36

(c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and

Page 4

Arjun

906-ABA-74-2025.DOC

residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶41

(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

¶42

(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

¶43

(f) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶44

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶46

Page 5

¶47

Arjun

Machindra Sadashiv Chandane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machindra Sadashiv Chandane v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Divesh Suresh Kerekar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dipen Arvind Gala vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikas Vitthal Shelar and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Tanvir Ahmed Khurshid

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Dilip Hirji Canatra

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Sterling Sez and Infrastructure Limited