Bombay High Court
Achyut Vinayak Wakde vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12064
1 28.ba1039.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1039/2024
Achyut Vinayak Wakde
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Sr. Advocate a/b. Mr. S. K. Bhandarkar, Advocate
for the Applicant.
Ms T. H. Udeshi, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,J.
DATED : 13/11/2025.
. Heard.
2. The applicant is arrested in connection with
Crime No.669/2023 registered with Police Station, Sadar,
District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections
120-B, 381, 409, 411, 413, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The crime is registered against the clerk of the
Maharashtra Accidents Claim Tribunal. There is a
misappropriation of huge amount. The complaints were
made by the claimants that they have not received the
compensation amount in their accounts. During inspection
by the High Court, it was found that the amount was
misappropriated. The applicant is one of the accused.
Accused No.9 is Apex Trading Company. The applicant is
the proprietor of the said Company. In the account of said
Apex Trading a huge amount of 20,00,00,000/- (Rs.
Twenty Crores) was deposited. The amount was deposited
directly through Treasury in his account and it was
withdrawn by accused No.1.
2 28.ba1039.24
4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anil Mardikar
for the applicant has stated that, accused No.1 is the friend
of the applicant. He was not knowing as to why accused
No.1 is using his account. The amount was transferred in
his account and accused No.1 has withdrawn it. The
offences are registered against accused No.1. The applicant
is not concerned with the said offences.
5. It is argued that the offence under Section 411
of the Indian Penal Code will be attracted against this
applicant in case of the acceptance of stolen property. As
per Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code, the
misappropriation comes under the definition of 'Stolen
Property' and therefore, the offence under Section 411 will
be attracted against the applicant, which provides the
punishment of three years. Since last two years, the
applicant is in jail. There is no any active participation or
the other offences which are registered against the accused
No.1 will not be attracted against this applicant. The
account in which the amount was received is freezed.
Therefore, further custody of this applicant is not required.
Hence, prayed to release the applicant on bail.
6. The learned A.P.P. raised an objection that
there is suppression of fact, though the crimes are
registered against this applicant, it is not disclosed and the
incorrect statement is made that no crime is registered
against this applicant.
7. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that eleven
offences are registered during the period from 23.05.2012
to 05.07.2023. The applicant is involved in three crimes.
The applicant has not given any explanation why said
3 28.ba1039.24
crimes are not disclosed. The bank statement, which is
filed on record shows that the amount was withdrawn by
the Company which is run by the daughter and son of
accused No.1. The circle is complete to show the
involvement of this applicant in crime as amount is
deposited in his account and withdrawn by accused No.1.
The applicant has permitted different accused persons to
withdraw the amount from his account. In such a situation,
the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
will be attracted. As the other offences which are registered
against accused No.1 are punishable up to life, the offence
of conspiracy will be established against this applicant.
Hence, prayed to reject the application.
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and
the learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the record.
9. The applicant has relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement [(2020) 13 SCC 791, wherein it
is observed in paragraph No.23 as under :
"23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the
judgments cited on either side including the one
rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it
could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence
relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the
grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception
so as to ensure that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while
considering the same the gravity of the offence is
an aspect which is required to be kept in view by
the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will
have to be gathered from the facts and
circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view
the consequences that would befall on the society
in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held
4 28.ba1039.24
that even economic offences would fall under the
category of "grave offence" and in such
circumstance while considering the application for
bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal
with the same, being sensitive to the nature of
allegation made against the accused. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence
is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for
the offence the accused is alleged to have
committed. Such consideration with regard to the
gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to
the triple test or the tripod test that would be
normally applied. In that regard what is also to be
kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is
one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that
bail should be denied in every case since there is
no such bar created in the relevant enactment
passed by the legislature nor does the bail
jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the
underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the
nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of
another case alone will not be the basis for either
grant or refusal of bail though it may have a
bearing on principle. But ultimately the
consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis
on the facts involved therein and securing the
presence of the accused to stand trial."
10. Though it is posed that it is a simplicitor offence
of receiving stolen property which is punishable under
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment is for
three years only; on perusal of the record it appears that
huge amount of claimants was transferred in the account of
this applicant. The amount was transferred directly
through Treasury in the account of this applicant and the
applicant has not objected to the same and allowed to
withdraw the said amount by the other co-accused, which
clearly shows his involvement and the conspiracy between
5 28.ba1039.24
him and accused No.1, who is the main accused. It can not
be termed as the applicant was not vigilant when he
received the huge amount in his account. Three offences
are registered against him. The learned A.P.P. has pointed
out about incorrect statement made by the applicant about
no criminal antecedent. The applicant while replying to
this issue has stated that it is out of the same transactions,
the misappropriation started from 23.05.2012 to
05.07.2023 i.e for 11 years, the period is bifurcated and
the First Information Reports are lodged. Therefore,
though the First Information Reports are registered against
this applicant, it is out of same transaction and therefore, it
is not mentioned. However, it appears that there is no
explanation about it and, the applicant has made bold
statement that no crime is registered against him though
three crimes are already registered against him. As per the
directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is mandatory to
disclose the antecedents.
11. Considering the involvement of this applicant in
said crime, it is not the case to release the applicant on
bail. Hence, the application is rejected.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/11/2025 17:35:10
