Bombay High Court
Manoj S/O Shrikrushna Tiwane vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 17 September, 2025
1 ba892.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.892/2025
(Manoj S/o Shrikrushna Tiwane Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ural, Tq.
Balapur, Distt. Akola)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Vinod Thakare, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 9.9.2025.
DATE OF PEONOUNCING THE ORDER: 17.9.2025.
Heard.
2. The applicant has filed this bail application being arrested in
Crime No.410/2023 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the case of prosecution that on the complaint lodged by
one Nishant Paraskar the crime is registered. The allegations are
made that the applicant has cheated him to the tune of
Rs.18,06,570/- and he induced the complainant by giving assurance
that he would be appointed as an Assistant Inspector in Maharashtra
Police Wireless Department. The applicant has received an amount of
Rs.20,42,000/- from one Ku. Vaishnavi Waghole for appointment to
similar post in Maharashtra Police. It is also alleged that one Prashant
Giri was also cheated by the applicant to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-
by promising to give an appointment to his brother Swapnil in Indian
Army. The applicant has prepared false documents and provided the
same to the complainant and others from whom he has taken money.
The financial transactions took place through Online mode and major
amount was paid in cash to the applicant and others.
2 ba892.2025.odt
4. The applicant had also provided uniform to the complainant
and others of the government department. During the investigation,
the investigating agency has seized some forged documents, uniform
as well as bank statements of the applicant.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that as the bank
statement and other documents are already seized, nothing is there to
be recovered from the applicant. The charge-sheet is also filed. The
investigation is complete. Therefore, no purpose would be served by
keeping applicant behind the bars.
6. The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil V/s.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51
wherein the Court has made it clear that even if the allegation is one
of the 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
provide so. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinod
Bhandari V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015(11) SCC 502
the object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability
to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The
detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of
the allegations or the availability of the material in support thereof
are not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in
commencement of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the
accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not
likely to be concluded within reasonable time. In this case, the
maximum sentence prescribed for the offence is 7 years and applicant
is behind bars from almost 7 months.
3 ba892.2025.odt
7. The reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the applicant
in case of Gudikranti Narasimulhu V/s. Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1978 (1) SCC 240 wherein it is
observed that object to keep a person in custody pending trial or
disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at
trial. In the present case, the applicant has deep roots in the society,
there is no possibility of fleeing away from the country and not being
available for the trial. Hence, prayed to release the applicant on bail.
8. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the
applicant has duped many persons. He has given assurance to the
needy persons. He has forged the documents and even provided
uniform to the persons. Considering the role played by this applicant,
application be rejected.
9. It appears from the charge-sheet that there is recovery of
clothes, the uniforms which the applicant has provided to the first
informant and other persons. He has forged the documents and gave
the appointment letters. The applicant has relied on the judgments of
this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. I have gone through the
judgments. In order of bail passed by this Court in Criminal
Application (ABA) No.475/2025 (Sau. Roshani Romal Naktode V/s.
State of Maharashtra and another) as mandatory provision of Section
41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not complied by the police,
the bail is granted, which is not the case in hand. This is regular bail
application. Reliance is placed on the order of this Court in case of
Chanda Deepak Kochhar V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 72 which is also about same
provision of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case
of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) observations are made that in
4 ba892.2025.odt
economic offence if the investigation is completed, custody is not
required and the accused can be released on bail.
10. In the case in hand it represents possible hinks in the faith of
the people in the public administration and the executive. If the
severity of the punishment, prima facie, view of the involvement of
the accused is considered, with utmost respect, though the
punishment is of 7 years, considering the fact that the applicant has
duped many persons by giving assurance of the government job, he
had provided uniform and also impersonated himself as the police
person, it appears that there is, prima facie or reasonable ground, to
believe that the applicant/accused has committed the offence and on
a balance of consideration there is need for the continued custody of
the accused to sub-serve the purpose of criminal justice.
11. In the recent judgment in case of State of Rajasthan V/s. Indraj
Singh Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 518 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed in paragraph No.12 as under:-
"12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant
of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among
which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment
and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are
important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an
application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of
assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is
not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence
on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for
trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there
is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the
considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused
subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. ......"
12. In above-said case, dummy candidates appeared in place of the
5 ba892.2025.odt
candidates in public recruitment examination conducted by
Government. While canceling the bail, observations are made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.10 as follows:-
10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of
Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it
may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process -
with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has
only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute
scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and
further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that
those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones
who have deservedly been installed to Criminal Appeal
No.1051 of 2025 such positions. Each act, such as the one
allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible
hinks in the faith of the people in the public administration
and the executive."
13. In case in hand the accused has committed an offence of
forgery by way of impersonation and providing the uniform of
government servant. The applicant in his written notes of arguments
has raised sole inculpability of the applicant and involvement of
others is mentioned. It cannot be a ground to release him on bail.
14. In view of above-said observations and considering pre-planned
act of applicant to dupe persons, this is not a fit case to release the
applicant on bail. Hence the application is rejected.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/09/2025 19:27:44
