Kalpeshkumar Shah S/O Jashwantlal Shah vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 2797 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Kalpeshkumar Shah S/O Jashwantlal Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 27 April, 2026

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/23664/2025                              CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

                                                                                                            undefined




                                                                        Reserved On   : 18/03/2026
                                                                        Pronounced On : 27/04/2026

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 23664
                                                  of 2025


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
                       ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

========================================================== KALPESHKUMAR SHAH S/O JASHWANTLAL SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

NARENDRA K AMIN(9506) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

CAV ORDER

1. The applicant who is apprehending arrest at the hands of

CID Crime Vadodara Zone Police Station for the offence which

came to be registered vide Part-A I CR No. 11201005250003 of

2025 dated 22.06.2025, under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468,

471, 474, 114 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b),

13(2), 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, has preferred the

present application praying for anticipatory under section 482 of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

the BNSS, 2023.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Narendra K. Amin assisted by

learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Sudarshan, for the applicant. As

mentioned in the bail application, the applicant is a proprietor of

a registered firm namely Chirag Rig Services, and is carrying on

business as government approved contractor, and is involved in

water supply project conducted by Water and Sanitation

Management Organization (WASMO). It was submitted that,

WASMO is merely a tender-approving authority appointed by the

State of Gujarat, whereas, the Water Committee of the

respective Village Panchayat is authorized to issue work orders,

supervise the work, and make payments. It is further submitted

that, the project work was carried out under the direct

supervision of the concerned Village Water Committee.

2.1 It is further submitted that, during the years 2021 to 2023,

Chirag Rig Services was awarded contracts in different villages of

Mahisagar District under the "Nal Se Jal" scheme and that the

work orders were issued by the respective Village Water

Committees, after approval of tenders by WASMO. It is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

submitted that, the Talati is the signatory authority at the village

level.

2.2 It is further submitted that, the applicant was never

allotted any contractual work for Undra and Govindpur Bariya

villages and that false and fabricated facts have been stated in

the FIR.

2.3 It is further submitted that, WASMO was not directly privy

to the contract with the applicant and that, the applicant had

entered into contracts with the respective Village Water

Committees. According to the submissions, the work executed by

the applicant was duly supervised, measured, verified on site, and

completion certificates were issued, before initiation of the

payment process.

2.4 It is also submitted that, all the measurements of the work

completed were taken and maps were prepared and joint

measurements were also taken by both the parties and were sent

for approval of the WASMO, and after complete cross-

verification having been done, bills were prepared by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

department.

2.5 It has also been submitted that, recovery notices issued by

WASMO were vague and without detailed particulars, compelling

the applicant to file Special Civil Application No. 15913 of 2024

before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.

2.6 It is also submitted on behalf of the applicant that, the

department had remained silent for two years and had not

released his outstanding dues despite repeated follow-ups, and

then, all of a sudden had passed absolutely wrong and illegal

orders of not only blacklisting the applicant's firm along with 110

other firms for indefinite period, but, had also made an attempt

to recover the amount more than what was paid to the

applicant's firm, against the execution of the works, which were

awarded by the way of contract.

2.7 It is also submitted that, the applicant was neither given

any chance to put up his defence nor a prior notice was given to

him before issuing the recovery notice. However, the order of

blacklisting and recovery was challenged by the applicant as well

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

as other contractors before the High Court and all the orders of

recoveries were set aside whereas, the order of blacklisting the

applicant's firm and other firms was voluntarily revoked by the

department.

2.8 It is submitted that, the applicant was served with a fresh

notice whereby, he was called at Gandhinagar and that, he had

submitted all the relevant documents and bills with the

department, and he was assured that his balance amount would

be released soon by the department. However, the same was not

done.

2.9 It is also mentioned that, the government portal of Gujarat

government has posted the scheme of "Nal Se Jal Yojana" of

Mahisagar district highlighting it as a grand success, and the

same was completed and the department had achieved 100%

target as expected by the same scheme.

2.10 It is stated on behalf of the applicant that, he came to know

that one Mr. Girish Amarshibhai Agola (unit Manager), had filed a

complaint with CID crime police station alleging huge scam worth

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

crores of rupees in the Nal Se Jal Yojana of Mahisagar district,

wherein all 12 persons i.e. officials of the department were

shown as accused in the said FIR. During the course of

investigation names of 111 contractors were also included as

accused in the said FIR. Hence, the present application came to

be filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Narendra K. Amin for the

applicant who has reiterated the averments of the application

and has taken the court through the evidence which was

collected by the investigation officer. Mr. Amin has placed on

record the documents pertaining to completion of work under

the project of "Nal Se Jal Yojana" by the applicant. He has

forcefully submitted that, the applicant had placed on record all

the documents revealing completion of work before the

department, and though he had given a detailed explanation to

the notice of the department pursuant to the order passed by

the High Court, the same was not considered. Mr. Amin has

further submitted that, the department had initiated

proceedings by filing the FIR after a delay of almost 2 years, and

that, there is no iota of evidence to substantiate such allegations.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Amin has forcefully submitted that,

there are no incriminating ingredients in the FIR to rope in the

applicant as an accused. The applicant was never entrusted any

government property. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been

explained. The prosecution has failed to collect evidence as to

who had forged the documents/bills which were allegedly

submitted by the applicant. Mr. Amin by drawing the court's

attention to clause-25 of the WASMO guidelines has submitted

that, the department/agency/government can at the most

initiate recovery proceedings against the applicant for

uncompleted and/or deficient work. The dispute in question is of

civil nature, and all allegations pertain to documentary evidence

which has already been collected by the Investigating Officer.

3.2 Though the applicant had submitted all the documents

before the department, it had not considered the same in true

and correct spirit. The applicant has not committed any

misappropriation of monies, and the allegations in the FIR are

hugely concocted. Accordingly, Mr. Amin has urged the court to

allow this application and grant the anticipatory bail to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

applicant. Mr. Amin, upon instructions has submitted that, the

applicant is ready and willing to deposit more amount.

4. Heard learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi on behalf of the

respondent-State who has submitted that, the applicant had not

completed the works contract of 4 villages of Mahisagar district

which were awarded to him, and thereafter, though the work was

incomplete, had raised false and bogus bills pertaining to

purchase of pipes and also false report of pipe testing, the said

false bills were approved. It is further submitted that, the

applicant while being awarded the works contract had not

purchased pipes from authorized vendor and false invoices for

purchasing pipes were raised. The applicant had also submitted

false bills and had not completed the works which were allotted

to him. It is also submitted that, the WASMO had conducted

inspection at various villages namely Ladan na Muvada, Rampur

Padedi, Tejakui, Nana Sonela, Sarad, Salera, Jethola etc. from

wherein, it was revealed that, the pipes used by the applicant

were not of approved quality and the measurement as

mentioned in the tender was also not followed. So also, the pipe

testing report from Gujarat Industrial Research and Development

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

Agency (In short 'GIRDA') the same was false. The works were

deficient, however, excess payments were made in favour of the

applicant, false bills were raised for incomplete work. Learned

APP has submitted that, the applicant by not completing the

works for which contract was awarded to him and by submitting

false bills had committed fraud with the government. Hence,

considering his role in the offence the present application be

dismissed.

4.1 Learned APP has stated that, the applicant was a direct

beneficiary of the government funds which were siphoned off.

The anticipatory bail application of officers of WASMO have been

rejected. In all 26 persons have been arrested and chargesheets

have been filed against 24 of them. Considering the nature of

offence, there do not appear any exceptional circumstances to

grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5. At the outset, an FIR came to be lodged before the CID

Crime, Vadodara Zone Police Station on 22.06.2025, by one Mr.

Girish Amarshibhai Agola, who was the Unit Manager of District

Water and Cleanliness Unit, Water Sanitation and Management

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

Organisation (WASMO), Mahisagar, wherein, various office

bearers of WASMO along with contractors were named as

accused.

6. The Government had approved the project of "Nal Se Jal

Yojana" in all the Talukas of Mahisagar district, whereby 620

villages were to be provided drinking water through pipeline,

wells and tube wells for which the Government had allocated

budget. However, the office bearers of the WASMO and

concerned Government department in collusion with the

applicant and the other co-accused had entered into a criminal

conspiracy and had siphoned off funds which were meant for the

completion of the "Nal Se Jal Yojana".

7. It is further alleged that, the pipelines, home connections

and incidental work were not completed by the contractors as

per the contract agreement and bogus documents, accounts and

invoices were created in connivance with the government

officials, and accordingly, loss of Rs. 123.22 crores was caused to

the Government of Gujarat.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

8. So far as the allegations against the applicant are

concerned, he was awarded contract for 39 villages of Mahisagar

District. As per the report of the fact finding committee,

irregularities were noticed in villages namely Laadan Na Muvada,

Rampur Padedi, Tejakui, Sonela, Saraad, Salera, Jethola, Pandya

Na Muvada, Jalkukdi, Kaaranta, Boravi, Kharolvanka, Korvai

Nishal, Dedawada, Dalelpura, Paandarwada, Kantiyada and

Dhodiyarpir. The same were were as regards payments being

done for the entire work which was of lesser length at the spot,

excess payments done for digging, refilling and pipelines laying

instead of the actual work which was done, the pipelines which

were laid were at lesser depth than the prescribed depth, for

which payments were done, the works were not completed and

the works being done without any agreement, the purchase of

pipes not being done from the approved vendors and inspite of

the purchase not being done from the approved vendors, the

payment as regards price variation was done to the applicant, the

payment was done for the pipelines which were of lesser length

than what was prescribed, work was done for lesser connections

and payments were accepted for more connections, and though

contacts were awarded to other agencies the applicant having

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

done poor quality work and having raised bills for the same.

9. Thus, it is alleged that the works which were shown to

completed were either not fully completed or not completed at

all, as per the terms and conditions of the tenders which were

floated by the Government, pursuant to which contracts were

awarded.

10. The I.O. had also recorded the statement of one Mitesh

Kumar Kantibhai Prajapati who is a research assistant with

GIRDA. He has clearly mentioned in his statement that, the report

which was submitted by the applicant is false. It is also alleged

that, the measurements of the work were not as per the tender

document.

11. It is true that, the applicant herein had preferred a Special

Civil Application No. 15913 of 2024 praying for Writ of

Mandamus for recovery of amount from the respondents. The

Co-ordinate bench vide order passed on 25.11.2024, had

disposed off the said application by directing the respondents to

supply necessary information/ documents to the applicant in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

respect of recovery notices within a period of three weeks, of

which the applicant would file his reply within two weeks

thereafter, and the competent authority would give one hearing

to the applicant, before finally adjudicating the recovery notices,

considering the applicant's reply, within a period of four weeks

thereafter.

12. It is pertinent to observe that, the applicant herein had

given a reply to the Chief Engineer of WASMO, wherein he had

denied all the allegations against him and had submitted that, he

had neither raised any false bills nor had done any scam.

However, the spot verification done by the agency did not find

that, the works done by the applicant were as per the terms and

conditions of the tender, and so also, the bills which were raised

being neither true nor valid nor legal.

13. This court cannot be oblivious to the fact that, after

thorough inquiry and verification done by the WASMO, the entire

scam was unearthed, wherein, the applicant along with the other

co-accused were expressly involved, and in spite of the

Government of Gujarat having allocated funds to provide

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

drinking water to 620 villages of Mahisagar district, the

concerned government officials in connivance with the

contractors not having completed the works as per the terms and

conditions of the tenders, and instead have caused loss to the

exchequer to the tune of Rs.123.22/- crores. In the State of

Gujarat, the government is making every effort to see that

drinking water reaches every household. The government being

mindful of the said fact had allocated funds to provide drinking

water to every household of the 620 villages of Mahisagar

district. It clearly appears that, the government officials and the

contractors involved in this scam by either not completing the

work fully or doing the work of substandard quality, has deprived

the villagers of 620 villages of Mahisagar district.

14. The investigation officer in his affidavit before the Sessions

Court of Mahisagar at Lunawada has rightly submitted that, a

thorough investigation is required for which the custody of the

applicant is mandatory.

15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

Office Vs Aditya Sarda reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 764, the

Hon'ble Apex Court in para nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 has observed

thus:-

18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this Court has consistently emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, it was observed as under: -

"Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional cases

69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised 2 (2019) 9 SCC 24 sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail....

70. .............

71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the Article i.e. "...except according to a procedure prescribed by law". In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia [State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221: 1995 SCC (Cri) 439] , the Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

under: (SCC p. 226, para 7) "7. ... We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st Report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. It observed:

'We agree that this would be a useful advantage. Though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such power should be exercised.

' In the light of this recommendation, Section 438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the CriminalProcedure Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a Court of Session or the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.

(emphasis supplied)

72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights--safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India....

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal."

Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

19. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,3 it was observed as under: -

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

20. In Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,4 it was observed as under: -

"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364: 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book.

A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white- collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."

21. Recently in Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

of Bihar, a very pertinent observations have been made with regard to the powers of the Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC. It has been observed that -

"9. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. PC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan alias J.M. John Paul).

10. When a Court grants anticipatory bail what it actually does is only to make an order that in the event of arrest, the arrestee shall be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions. Taking note of the fact the said power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that it may cause some hinderance to the normal flow of investigation method when called upon to exercise the power 5 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 282 under Section 438, Cr.PC, courts must keep reminded of the position that law aides only the abiding and certainly not its resistant. By saying so, we mean that a person, having subjected to investigation on a serious offence and upon making out a case, is included in a charge sheet or even after filing of a refer report, later, in accordance with law, the Court issues a summons to a person, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. It only means that though he will still be at liberty, rather, in his right, to take recourse to the legal remedies available only in accordance with law, but not in its defiance. We will dilate

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

this discussion with reference to the factual matrix of this case. However, we think that before dealing with the same, a small deviation to have a glance at the scope and application of the provisions under Section 82, Cr.PC will not be inappropriate......

25. 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. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant."

16. So also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Vs

State of Maharashtra with Chandrakant Vs State of

Maharashtra reported in 2015(0) AIJEL-SC 57156 while dealing

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

with the criminal appeals filed by the accused challenging their

cancellation of anticipatory bail by the Bombay High Court, had

declined to interfere with the order of cancellation of

anticipatory bail passed by the said High Court and consequently,

had dismissed the appeals preferred by the accused therein the

subject matter of the said case also pertained to serious

allegations of criminal misappropriation of funds released for

implementation of schemes of drinking water in the villages of

Waghlud and Sonwad Khurd in Tehsil Dharangaon, Maharashtra.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no. 14 has observed thus:-

"14. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and after considering the gravity of the offence, circumstances of the case, particularly, the allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds released for rural development, and further considering the conduct of the appellants and the fact that the investigation is held up as the custodial interrogation of the appellants could not be done due to the anticipatory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. Therefore, we are not inclined to disturb the same."

17. The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

both the cases are squarely applicable to the case on hand.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23664/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

undefined

18. Thus, considering the investigation papers in its entirety, it

does not deem fit to this court to exercise discretion in favour of

the applicant, accordingly the present bail application is rejected.

(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANIRUDH OJHA