Shrikant Sureshpant Chilajwar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ner Parsopant Tahsil Ner Dist. Yavatmal

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 906 OF 2025 (Dilip Krushnarao Tikhe vs. State, thr PSO, PS Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal) and CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 917 OF 2025 (Dipak Suryabhanji Ade vs. State, thr PSO, PS Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal) and CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 920 OF 2025 (Vasantrao s/o Shantaramji Pohekar vs. State, thr PSO, PS Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal) and CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 918 OF 2025 (Ramesh s/o Manakchand Kahate vs. State, thr PSO, PS Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal) and

¶49

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 919 OF 2025

¶50

(Najukrao s/o Udebhan Dhande vs. State, thr PSO, PS Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal) and

¶51

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 953 OF 2025

¶52

(Ganesh @ Machindra s/o Sopanrao Kadam vs. State, thr PSO, PS Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal)

¶53

and CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 982 OF 2025

¶54

(Mohd. Asraf Haji Jusab Makwani vs. State, thr PSO, PS Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal) and -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar’s Orders. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Mr. Yuvraj Dhande, Advocate for applicant in ABA 987/2025 & 988/2025. Mr. A.S. Manohar, Advocate for applicant in ABA 873/2025, ABA 874/2025, ABA 875/2025, Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for applicant in ABA 46/2026, ABA 891/2026, ABA 917/2025 Mr. A S Deshpande, Advocate for applicant in ABA 77/2026 Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for applicant in ABA 76/2026, ABA 84/2026, ABA 110/2026, ABA 155/2026, ABA 893/2025, ABA 892/2025, ABA 982/2025 Mr. S.V. Bhutada, Advocate for applicant in ABA 895/2025. Mr. A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for applicant in ABA 901/2025 Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for applicant in ABA 906/2025 Mr. M.A. Sable, Advocate for applicant in ABA 920/2025, ABA 918/2025, ABA 919/2025, Mr. Tejas Deshpande, Advocate for applicant in ABA 953/2025 Mr. N.S. Autkar, APP for non-applicant/State. Mr. S.M. Bhagde, Advocate (appointed) to assist the prosecution in ABA Nos. 892, 893,895,982, 987,988,901,906,918,919,920 of 2025. CORAM: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE: 28.04.2026

¶55

3 4aba987.2025..odt

¶56

Heard.

¶57

Apprehending arrest, the applicants in FIR no.485/2025, registered with Police Station, Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 406 and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, the Act of 1999”) are before this Court.

¶58

The chart below would reveal the date of appointment, designation and tenure of the applicants in the respective criminal applications. The accused at Serial no. 22 has not preferred application in this bunch of applications.

¶59

v-	Lakpkydkps uko o	dkyko/kh	Ikn	25-4-	26-4-	izfrKkys[k	izfrKkys
dz-	iRrk			2026	2026	izdkj 25- 4-2026	[k izdkj 26-4- 2026
1	x.ks’k izYgkn jkmr] usj891@2025	fn 14-5-2015 rs 2-8- 2022	lapkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
		fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	v/;{k
2	fnid lq;ZHkku vkM jk iou uxj usj 970@25	fn-20-5-2007 rs fn 28- 5-2009	lapkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
		fn-8-6-2009 rs fn 13-5- 2015	lapkyd
		fn-14-5-2015 rs fn 2-8- 2022	mik/;{k
		fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	mik/;{k
3	jes’k ekf.kdpan dgkrs tSu eanhj toG usj918@25	2004 rs 21-5-2007	lapkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
		fn-21-5-2007 rs fn 28- 5-2009	Lakpkyd
		fn-8-6-2009 rs fn 13-5- 2015	lapkyd
		fn-14-5-2015 rs fn 2-8- 2022	v/;{k
		fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lakpkyd

¶60

4 4aba987.2025..odt

¶61

4	Oklarjko ‘kkarkjketh iksgsdj] jk esu ykbZu usj 920@25	1990 rs 2004	Lakpkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
		2004 rs 21-5-2007	Lakpkyd
		fn-8-6-2009 rs fn 13-5- 2015	Lakpkyd
		fn-154-5-2015 rs 2-8- 2022	Lakpkyd
		fn 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lakpkyd
5	fnyhijko d`”.kjko fr[ks jk f’kokthuxj usj 906@25	fn 14-5-2015 rs 2-8- 2022	Lakpkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
		fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lkapkyd
6	fo?.kqHkkm iqaMfydjko isVdj jk f’kokthuxj usj- 873@25	fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lkapkyd	gtj	gtj	Lkknj dsyk ukgh	uksVjh
7	uktwdjko mnsHkku /kkans jk ns’keq[kuxj usj 919@2025	fn 14-5-2025 rs 2-8- 2022	Lakpkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
		fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks
8	egsanz lqnke frokjh jk cksjh vjc 875@25	fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lakpkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
9	Jhdkar lqjs’k iar fpytokj jk f’kokthuxj usj 874@25	fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lkapkyd	gtj	gtj	Lkknj dsyk ukgh	uksVjh
10	x.ks’k mQZ ePNhanz lksikujko dne jk esu ykbZu usj 853@2025	fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lkapkyd	gtj	gtj	uksVjh
11	fnus’k jkenkliar ikaxkjdj jk FkkoMk uxj usj895@25	fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lakpkyd	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
12	pankckbZ fo”.kqHkkm rodkj jk cghje uxj usj 893@2025	fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lkapkyd	gtj	gtj	Lkknj dsyk ukgh	UkskVjh
13	;ksxhrk ;ksxs’k ngsdkj jk ekaxyknsoh 892@25	fn- 3-8-2022 rs xqUgk uksan ikosrks	Lkapkyd	gtj	gtj	uksVjh
14	jfoanz e/kqlqnu fxjksydj jk lkoykuxj usj 901@2025	2005 rs 2006	O;oLFkki d	gtj	gtj	rk- naMkf/kdkjh
		2011 rs 2012	O;oLFkki d
		1-3-2008 rs 30-4-2010	iz- ljO;o LFkkid

¶62

5 4aba987.2025..odt

¶63

4-12-2013 rs 31-3-2017 iz-
ljO;o
LFkkid
1-4-2017 rs 30-6-2024 LkjO;o
LFkkid
15 eukst mn/kojko fn 14-5-2015 rs 2-8- Lakpkyd XskSjgtj gtj Lkknj dsyk uksVjh
ukYgs] jk 2022 ukgh
ekfudokMk
987@2025
16 Hkkmjko ekjksrjko fn 21-5-2007 rs 28-5- Lakpkyd XskSjgtj gtj Lkknj dsyk uksVjh
<oGs jk pdzorh 2009 ukgh
uxj usj 988@25
8-6-2009 rs 13-5-2015
17 vJQ gkth tqlc fn 14-5-2015 rs 2-8- Lkapkyd gtj gtj uksVjh
edokuh jk 2022
fHkeuxj usj
982@25
18 vfuy ;knojko fn 14-5-20156 rs 2-8- Lkapkyd gtj gtj uksVjh
HskykaMs jk yksgh 2022
110@26
19 feuk guqearjko 2004 rs fn 21-5-2007 Lkapkyd gtj gtj uksVjh
txrki jk ekjokMh
pkSd usj 155@26
20 ikaMwjax iqj”kksRre 2004 rs 2007 lapkyd gtj gtj rk-
ikaMs jk f’kokth naMkf/kdkjh
uxj usj
77@2026
21 v’kksd uanyky fn 14-5-2015 rs 2-8- lapkyd gtj gtj rk-
tSLoky jk cksjh 2022 naMkf/kdkjh
vjc
46@26
22 jt.khrkbZ v’kksdjko fn 14-5-2015 rs 2-8- lapkyd xSjgtj xSjgtj Lkknj dsyk Lkknj
nq/ks jk lkojdj 2022 ukgh dsyk
uxj usj ukgh
23 fo”.kqHkkm dkf’kukFk fn 21-5-2007 rs 28-5- Lakpkyd gtj gtj Lkknj dsyk UkskVjh
rodkj jk cghje 2009 ukgh
uxj usj
84@2026
8-6-2009 rs fn 13-5-
2015
24 jt.kh fot; 8-6-2009 rs fn 13-5- Lkapkyd gtj gtj uksVjh
uk;dj jk lq;kZn; 2015
eaxydk;kZy;k ekxs
76@26

¶64

The aforesaid chart would reveal that some of the applicants were Directors, some were Managers, some were InCharge Managers, for a particular period.

¶65

The reporter of crime is one Sujit Pralhad Jadhav,

¶66

6 4aba987.2025..odt

¶67

Special Auditor, Class II, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal. The report is based upon the Audit Report of audit conducted by him and forwarded to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal on 12.8.2025. It is observed in the report that all the applicants, either acting as a Director or the Manager or employees have caused wrongful loss to the society as well as the depositors. It is further contended in the FIR as well as the audit report that though the credit cooperative society was required to accept the deposits by assuring return of interest @ 7 to 8%, the Directors of the Society had offered interest upto 14%. It is also stated in the Audit Report that no steps were taken since last 10 years for recovery of loan.

¶68

It is alleged that recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act were obtained but the recovery was not done and wrongful loss was caused to the society. According to the FIR, all the applicants – Directors were duty bound to protect the interest of the society by making viable promises but by assuring handsome returns, breached the various Circulars issued by the Cooperative Department. It is further alleged in the FIR that from 1991-92 till 2023-24, steps were not taken for recovery of the outstanding loan amount. Thereafter, in FIR it was stated that the society had suffered loss on a yearly basis.

¶69

In this background, the learned counsel for the respective parties have contended that if the allegations made in the FIR and the observations made in the Audit Report are taken

¶70

7 4aba987.2025..odt

¶71

into consideration, it would reveal that it is not even the case of the Investigating Agency that the applicants have embezzled any amount. According to the respective counsels, breach of any Circular, at the most, would will amount to an ‘irregularity’ but would not constitute ‘illegality’. They submitted that various Directors are occupying the position from the year 1991 till 2024 and therefore, blindly fixing liability on the accused persons would not be proper. They argued that even proceedings under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act have already been initiated against the Directors, Office Bearers and the Employees and at the conclusion of it, the specific liability would be fixed.

¶72

They further argued that as per the order passed by this Court in the month of November 2025, granting ad interim anticipatory bail, they have attended the concerned police station and have cooperated the Investigating Agency. The counsels also argued that as per order dated 22.4.2026, they have submitted the affidavit to the Investigating Agency stating that they will not transfer the immovable property which is purchased after their appointment on the society. They argued that the entire case is based on the documentary evidence and therefore, they be protected. According to learned counsels, no prima facie case is not made against the applicants.

¶73

Mr. S.N. Bhangade, learned appointed counsel has argued that all the applicants are responsible for day to day working of the Society and therefore, are not entitled for relief

¶74

8 4aba987.2025..odt

¶75

as sought. He further submitted that now the Administrator is also appointed on the Society which shows prima facie case agianst the applicants.

¶76

The learned APP has argued that the promise made by the office bearers and employees of the society that depositors would be paid interest @ 10 to 12% was not practicable and viable in a commercial world and therefore, it can be inferred that the applicants have induced the depositors. The learned APP has further stated that no steps were received by the office bearers of the society to recover the outstanding dues which speaks volume for itself. On the basis of instructions received from the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, learned APP has contended that though, the applicants have attended and cooperated with the Investigating Agency, the details of immovable property are still not supplied and thus, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. He pointed out that a communication is already made for appointment of Forensic Auditor. He has not disputed that the proceedings under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Act are already initiated against the applicants.

¶77

With the able assistance of learned counsels for respective parties, I have gone through the record and have given thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced.

¶78

The learned counsel Mr. Manohar, in order to support his case as well as to throw light on the issue involved, has

¶79

9 4aba987.2025..odt

¶80

invited my attention to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 , (“ Delhi Race Club”), more particularly, paragraph 38, 40, 41 and 43 and has contended that offences punishable under Sections 460 and 420 are mutually exclusive. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Savada Merchant Co-op. Credit Society Ltd and ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr , reported in 2014(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 132 , (“ Savada Merchant ”), more particularly, paragraphs 5 to 8 and contended that if the customer deposits the amount in the bank, it cannot be said that he has “entrusted” the amount with the bank.

¶81

At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that audit was conducted by the informant of Ashtavinayak Credit Cooperative Society, Ner for the period from 1991-92 to 202324. If the details given in the chart are perused, it would reveal that on different dates for different period, the Directors/Employees/Managers were appointed. The Investigating Officer is not in a position to show that what role was played by each of the accused during their tenure. He has submitted that the role can be crystallized only after the report from Forensic Auditor is received. It can thus be said that as on date except a bare statement of Investigating Officer nothing is available on record.

¶82

As regards the allegations in the FIR that interest @ 10

¶83

10 4aba987.2025..odt

¶84

to 12 percent was offered to the depositors and therefore, the anticipatory bail is required to be rejected, it can be said that for applicability of the Act of 1999, the question which will have to be answered is whether the promise made was practicable and viable in commercial world. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the rate of interest @ 10 to 12% for a particular period was impracticable or commercially not viable. The further contention of learned APP that no steps were taken to recover the amount and only the certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperatve Societies Act were obtained would not be a ground enough, in absence of particulars, to reject the anticipatory bail. As regards the applicability of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Delhi Race Club and Savada Merchant, it can be observed that although, the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are mutually exclusive, it would be too early to apply the said principle, to the case in hand, since the stage is of anticipatory bail only. The fact cannot be ignored that nothing is brought on record by the Investigating Agency that the applicants, as a Directors or the employee of the Society have embezzled certain amount. What is alleged, is violation of certain Circulars issued by the Cooperative Department.

¶85

Insofar as the argument advanced by learned appointed counsel that the applicants were responsible for day to day affairs of the Society, it can be said that prosecution has not brought any material in that regard to my notice.

¶86

11 4aba987.2025..odt

¶87

The applicants are attending the police station from last more than four months and the Investigating Agency has also not disputed that they have cooperated with the Investigating Agency. Further, the fact that the applicants have given affidavit disclosing the property acquired, except applicant Manoj Nalhe and Bhaurao Marotrao Dhawle, I do not find any reason to reject the applications.

¶88

The learned Counsel for applicants, named Manoj Nahalle and Bhaurao Dhawle, on instructions, has assured that within four working days, they will supply details of the property which they have acquired after their appointment, to the Investigating Agency. The statement is accepted as an undertaking to the Court.

¶89

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

i) In the event of arrest in connection with Crime 485/2025, registered with Police Station, Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 406 and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, the applicants namely, Manoj Uddhavrao Nalhe, Bhaurao Marotrao Dhawale, Vashnu Pundlik Pethkar, Shrikant Sureshpant Chilajwar,

¶92

12 4aba987.2025..odt

¶93

Mahendra Sudam Tiwari, Ashok s/o Nandlal Jaiswal, Pandurang s/o Purushottam Pande, Rajni w/o Vijay Naikar, Vishnu s/o Kashinath Tawkar, Anil s/o Yadavrao Bhelande, Meenabai w/o Hanvantrao Jagtap, Ganesh Pralhadrao Raut, Dinesh Ramdas Pangarkar, Chandabai w/o Vishnu Tawkar, Yogita w/o Yogesh Dahekar, Ravindra s/o Madhusudan Girolkar, Dilip Krushnarao Tikhe, Dipak Suryabhanji Ade, Vasantrao s/o Shantaramji Pohekar, Ramesh s/o Manakchand Kahate, Najukrao s/o Udebhan Dhande, Ganesh @ Machindra s/o Sopanrao Kadam and Mohd. Asraf Haji Jusab Makwani, be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶94

ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when directed by the Investigating Officer, and shall cooperate with the investigating agency.

¶95

iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶96

iv) The applicants shall not leave the India without prior permission of the Court.

¶97

13 4aba987.2025..odt 16. The fees of the learned appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per the Rules.

¶98

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)

¶99

Belkhede, PS

Shrikant Sureshpant Chilajwar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ner Parsopant Tahsil Ner Dist. Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Sureshpant Chilajwar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ner Parsopant Tahsil Ner Dist. Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Prashant Rammohan Rao Naidu vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Sadar Dist Nagpur

Chanda Parmeshwar Ratale Before Marriage Known an Nanda Supada Pakhare and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Tamgaon, Dist. Buldhana

Vishnupant S/O Ganpat Ingale and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Barshitakli, Dist. Akola

Sharwan Kumar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Manoj Kumar Prasad vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Kalmeshwar Dist. Nagpur

Anita Vishwanath Hatagade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps City Kotwali, Akola Tah. and Dist. Akola