Bombay High Court
Manish S/O Sunil Zade vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 3 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8675
1 8.aba.539.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.539/2025
Manish S/o. Sunil Zade Vs. State of Maharashtra
.................................................................................................................................. .
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order
or directions and Registrar's orders
...................................................................................................................................................
Mr. Amol Hunge, Advocate h/f. Mr. O. K. Masurke, Advocate for
Applicant.
Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State.
Mr. V. V. Joshi, Advocate for Informant.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 03.09.2025
1. The applicant has filed this application for grant
of anticipatory bail.
2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime
No.204/2025 registered with Police Station Gittikhadan,
Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. It is the case of the applicant that on the
complaint lodged by the Bank Manager of Tirupati Urban
Co-operative Bank, the crime was registered against seven
accused persons. The applicant is one of them. The
applicant had taken a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to purchase
Tractor on 16.10.2020. His loan was sanctioned. The co-
accused Sumit Manghate had also applied for the loan
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of Tractor. Thereafter,
again the loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/- to purchase
Mahindra and Mahindra Bolero Vehicle in the name of Zade
Tours and Travels was taken. He submitted the quotation of
2 8.aba.539.25.odt
Unnati Motors, Nagpur. The part of loan amount was
disbursed. The applicant failed to pay the loan amount and
therefore, the Bank has issued the notice. Thereafter, the
Bank knew that the vehicle was not purchased out of the
loan amount. As the applicant has cheated the Bank by filing
false and fabricated documents, the complaint was lodged
and the crime was registered.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has stated
that the custodial interrogation of this applicant is not
required as the record is with the Bank.
5. The applicant has relied on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Chetan Vallabhdas Pabari Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR OnLine 2022 Bom 935. By
relying on the various judgments, this Court has observed
that, "the custodial interrogation becomes necessary when
there is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of
influencing the witness or accused may abscond".
6. The applicant has also relied on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Pratap Rajendra Gaikwad Vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in AIR Online 2021 Bom 893 in
support of his arguments that, the investigation in the matter
is almost on the basis of the Government record, which
would definitely be available with the concerned office. Bail
is rule and jail is exception. When the physical custody of
the applicant is not required, he deserves to be released on
bail.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant has stated
that the documents are with the Bank and custodial
interrogation of his applicant is not required. Hence, prayed
3 8.aba.539.25.odt
to protect him by granting anticipatory bail.
8. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application
stating that from the inception the intention of the applicant
was to commit the fraud. He has submitted the fraudulent
documents. Though he has taken the loan, has not purchase
the vehicles and cheated the Bank. The learned A.P.P. has
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Appeal arising
out of SLP (Cri) No.(s) 10251/2024 with connected appeal],
wherein it is observed in paragraph No.18 as under :
"We have already held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though
in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a
rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be
said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be
the rule and the question of its grant should be left
to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each
case. While called upon to exercise the said power,
the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the
grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of
justice and may hamper the investigation to a great
extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or
distraction of the evidence. We shall not be
understood to have held that the Court shall not
pass an interim protection pending consideration of
such application as the Section is destined to
safeguard the freedom of an individual against
unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders
shall be passed in eminently fit cases...."
9. The learned Counsel for the informant has
stated that the applicant has committed fraud. He has taken
4 8.aba.539.25.odt
the loan and not purchased the vehicle. From the inception
his intention was to commit fraud. He has taken the loan to
purchase the vehicle and without purchasing it he submitted
false documents about vehicle. Hence, prayed to reject the
application.
10. It appears from the record that the Bank is
having the entire record with it. The applicant has paid the
installment. For Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there
should be misrepresentation since beginning and there
should be dishonest intention. Taking into above said facts
which had come on record, whether those ingredients get
attracted is a question, but taking into those facts, definitely
a case is made out to grant anticipatory bail as the facts do
not contemplate necessity of physical custody of the
applicant.
11. Considering the observations made by this Court
in the Judgment of Chetan Pabari (supra), the application is
allowed with following conditions.
i) Applicant - Manish S/o. Sunil Zade be
released on bail in Crime No.204/2025 registered
with Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code on his furnishing P.R. Bond in
the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount.
5 8.aba.539.25.odt
ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned
Police Station twice in a week i.e. on Wednesday
and Saturday between 1.00 to 2.00 p.m. till
completion of investigation.
iii] The applicant shall not in any way tamper
with the prosecution evidence.
iv] The applicant shall not pressurize or
threaten the prosecution witnesses.
v] The applicant shall co-operate the
investigation officer.
12. The Criminal Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/09/2025 18:33:14
