Rajvranjan Rameshchandra Pandey vs the State of Maharashtra

This is an Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 17 of 2025 registered with Economic Offences Wing Mumbai Station, on 15.02.2025 (Original FIR No. 68 of 2025 registered with Dadar Police Station), for the offence punishable under sections 316(5) 344, 340, 338, 336(2)(3), 317, 238, and 61(2) and 49 of the B.N.S 2023.

¶11

As per First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’ ) lodging by Accounting Chief Officer of New India Co-operative Bank Ltd, regular inspection was conducted by RBI of the bank on

¶12

Page 1 of 4 05^th March, 2026

¶13

13-BA-156-2026

¶14

12.02.2025. Inspection was done at office of Bank at Cuff parade and also at Goregaon Branch. Cash stored in the vault was checked. On verification it was found that there was short fall of Rs. 112 crores at prabhadevi Branch of the Bank. In connection with the said crime Applicant came to be arrested. Bail application filed before the Trial Court stood rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that 8 out of 11 accused / arrested persons are already enlarged on bail. He further claims that even C.E.O of the Bank is granted bail and hence there remains no justification for not considering release of applicant. According to him apart from parity, there is no evidence to show involvement of applicant in this crime. He further argued that coaccused Kapil and Javed who had alleged greater involvement in the crime in terms of amount are enlarged on bail. It is also contended that identity of applicant itself is doubtful as he is called Pawan Gupta by whomsoever. It is his contention that charge has not been framed and trial is not likely to get over in short time.

¶16

Learned APP opposed Application on the ground that no parity would apply for grant of bail, as the role attributed to the Applicant is different from accused on bail. It is pointed out that there is evidence in form of statement of witnesses who state about presence of Applicant at the time of case being taken out from the vault and the same has been done at the instruction of Applicant. It is submitted that at the most, role of Applicant could be said to be

Page 2 of 4

05^th March, 2026

13-BA-156-2026

similar to the absconding accused. It is claimed that this is a case of mis-appropriation of CSR fund of the Bank.

¶21

There cannot be dispute made about the fact that this is a case of embezzlement of huge amount of co-operative Bank. The missing cash from the vault of the bank is found in the verification done by team of R.B.I. The main accused on yet to be found since absconding new question arises as to whether there is prima-facie material on record to show involvement of applicant in this crime and whether his role is identical to the accused enlarged on bail, to apply parity.

¶22

Chargesheet apart from the other evidence includes statement of Sameer, who categorically stated about incidents of 21.05.2019 and 22.05.2019. His statement indicates direct involvement of present applicant in the actual taking over money involved in the crime and amounts were given to officer his instructions. There is further support to the allegations against the applicant from statement on record such as statement of Shrikant. Needless to say that at this stage it is not permissible for the Court to consider evidentiary value of statements of witnesses or to go into the details thereof, which could only be done in trial. Similarly, claims of Applicant about doubt of his identify would be matter to be considered by Trial Court at the time of trial.

¶23

Suffice it to say that prima-facie role attributed to the Applicant is not identical to me alleged against co-accused on bail.

¶24

Page 3 of 4 05^th March, 2026

¶25

13-BA-156-2026

¶26

Moreover when there is evidence to show prima-facie involvement of Applicant in economic offence and when co-accused are yet to be arrested, this is not a fit case for enlargement of Applicant on bail. Moreover this is not a case of long incarceration.

¶27

As a result of above discussion, Application Stands dismissed.

¶28

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶29

Page 4 of 4 05^th March, 2026

Rajvranjan Rameshchandra Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajvranjan Rameshchandra Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash @ Sunny Bhupat Das vs State of Maharashtra

Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky vs Union of India and Anr.

Mohammed Amir Abid Ali vs State of Maharashtra

Jashu Rasiklal Panchal vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reyaz S/O Mohammad Said and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Mohan Metya vs State of Maharashtra