[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Nitin Popatrao Bachhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 May, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1137                           OF 2026
Mr. Nitin Popatrao Bachhav                         ]
Aged: 50 years, Occ: Govt. Servant                 ]
R/at: Ushaakal, behind Sapna Theatre,              ]
Vrundavan Colony, Old CIDCO,                       ]
CIDCO Colony, Nashik,                              ]
Maharashtra - 422009                               ]    .... Applicant.
             V/s
The State of Maharashtra                           ]
(Through Nashik Road, Nashik City)                 ]    .... Respondent.

Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Pravin Uttam Gaikwad
with Mr. Gahineenath Karanjule, Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent-State.

                                        CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

                                        DATE     : 21st MAY 2026
                                                   [ VACATION COURT ]
P.C. :

1. By the present Application, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in

First Information Report (FIR) bearing C.R. No.0216 of 2026 registered

with the Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik City for the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5), 336(2),

336(3), 340(2), 338, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

("BNS") and under Sections 66, 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information &

Technology Act ("I.T. Act").

5 ABA-1137-26.doc bdpsps

2. There were initially three accused who were named in the FIR. It

is alleged by the prosecution that the Applicant who is the Deputy

Director of Education was an officer responsible for granting approval

for appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, verification of

eligibility, issuance of Shalarth IDs and ensure that salaries are disbursed

only to the duly appointed and approved employees in accordance with

Government Rules and Regulations. It is alleged that the accused persons

by forging and fabricating the records and by abusing their position

made illegal appointments during their tenure thereby causing huge loss

to the Government. It is in this backdrop that the FIR came to be

registered against the Applicant who is presently working as Deputy

Director of Education in respect of Nashik, Dhule, Nandurbar and

Jalgaon Districts.

3. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing for the

Applicant submits that co-accused, namely, Bhausaheb B. Chavan has

been granted protection by this Court vide an order dated 23 rd March

2026 passed in ABA No.767 of 2026. He has invited my attention to the

orders dated 18th April 2026, 22nd April 2026 and 6th May 2026 passed by

the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3660 of 2026

(Bajirao Namdeo Patil & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

5 ABA-1137-26.doc bdpsps

with connected matters, and submits that initially a Special Investigation

Team ("SIT") was constituted by the State Government and thereafter

noticing certain lapses in the investigation, the Division Bench of this

Court by its order dated 6th May 2026 has re-constituted the SIT. He

submits that even after filing of the FIR, the Applicant was attending to

office duties. There is no departmental inquiry initiated against the

Applicant. Notice has been served by the SIT on 24 th April 2026

directing the Applicant to attend the proceedings before the informed

date. The learned senior counsel further submits that in the event SIT

finds any material against the Applicant, it is always open for the

authorities to take action as is available to them in law.

4. Mr. Prashant Jadhav, learned APP opposes the Application and

submits that by an order dated 24th April 2026 anticipatory bail has been

rejected by a detailed order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

He submits that allegations pertain to systematic looting of public

money, creation of fake Shalarth IDs and deep rooted conspiracy which

involves high ranking officials. During the tenure of the Applicant

between 2017 to 2023, he was directly involved in the appointment of

201 persons out of total 841 persons appointed. In addition, 65

documents have been signed by the present Applicant. The Applicant has

5 ABA-1137-26.doc bdpsps

a direct role as is evident from several such statements mentioned in the

FIR. There is every likelihood that the Applicant may tamper records as

well as influence witnesses. Thus, this is not a fit case for grant of

anticipatory bail.

5. I have perused the record and heard the learned counsels appearing

for the parties. Paragraph no.6 of the Division Bench order dated 18 th

April 2026 reads as follows:-

"6. Keeping in view the earlier order passed by this Court on 7 th March, 2026 in Writ Petition No.16238 of 2025 along with connected Writ Petitions (Vaishali Pravin Patil & Anr. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), the concerned authorities would refrain from approaching the Police Station for lodging of FIR, only till the next date."

Paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the Division Bench order dated 22 nd

April 2026 read as follows:-

"12. Insofar as Criminal Petitions filed either prior to or subsequent to the registration of FIRs are concerned, in cases where FIRs have been registered, the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for seeking quashing of the FIR."

"13. In the Criminal Petitions before us today, which are filed purely for seeking directions, we expect the State Government to maintain status quo with regard to the proposed lodging of FIRs until 6th May, 2026 in view of the foregoing paragraphs of this order read with the order dated 7th March, 2026. Needless to state that inquiries being conducted at the level of the Commissioner of Education, as well as inquiries by the SIT, or the issuance of notices to any party as part of a fair procedure, shall continue unhindered. However, such notices shall disclose all necessary particulars."

5 ABA-1137-26.doc bdpsps

Paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Division Bench order dated

6th May 2026 read as follows:-

"8. Pursuant to our orders and our directions even to the Commissioner of Education, Mr. Sachindra Pratap Sinh, especially the order dated 22.04.2026, we find that Exhibit X-1 has been an outcome of such investigation undertaken by a police officer leading to the arrest of a teacher, who is still under investigation. On the one hand, there is a spurt of recording FIRs even at the behest of strangers and freelancers. On the other hand, the SIT is collecting evidence. In this backdrop, the Commissioner of Education is busy issuing directions for registration of FIRs when the SIT is exclusively constituted for this purpose. If the Commissioner himself wants to inquire and investigate as a single member SIT, we have every reason to even doubt the SIT. We had suggested the formation of a High-Power Committee which would be headed by a retired Chief Justice or a retired Judge of the High Court residing in the State of Maharashtra, who may have recently retired, in order to accept such task, which appears to be a challenge today."

9. In view of the above, we find that the Commissioner of Education needs to be restrained. We had expected him to follow a natural course of investigation rather than issuing directions for registration of FIRs, which ex facie may not be within the ambit of his jurisdiction. The post of Commissioner of Education was created way back in 2013 vide Government Resolution dated 18.10.2013, in which the job profile of the Commissioner of Education has been set out, which is mostly administrative and supervisory in character.

10. In view of the above, we direct that the Commissioner of Education shall be restrained from participating in this investigation until further orders. The investigation by the SIT, in collecting evidence and conducting enquiries, would continue. However, the presence of police officers in such enquiries conducted in the office of the Divisional Deputy Director of Education or similar offices, shall be prohibited.

11. Since the learned Addl. GPs seek time to obtain further instructions from the State Government regarding the formation of a High-Power Committee, which would be chaired by a retired Chief Justice or a retired Judge of the High Court, list all these proceedings on 22.06.2026, to be called out at 3.00 p.m."

5 ABA-1137-26.doc bdpsps

6. A reading of the above orders demonstrates that the Division

Bench has directed the concerned authorities to refrain from

approaching Police Station to lodge FIRs and to maintain status quo in

that regard. The SIT has already begun the investigation including

collecting evidence and conducting inquiries in the matter. In this

backdrop, notice dated 24th April 2026 has been issued by the SIT calling

upon the Applicant to attend to the proceedings before it. So far there is

no departmental inquiry against the Applicant. In my view, if the relief is

not granted, it will not be possible for the Applicant to attend the

proceedings before the SIT.

7. At this stage, learned APP submits that the operation of the order