Prashant S/O Ramchandra Khare v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Darvha, Tahsil Darvha, Dist. Yavatmal
2025:BHC-NAG:9009 1 / 4 34-ABA-645-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO. 645 OF 2025 Prashant Ramchandra Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. M.P. Suryawanshi, counsel for the applicant. Mr.Ujjawl Phasate, APP for the State.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 10/09/20251.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.141 of 2025 registered with Police Station Darwha, district Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2.
The allegations made against this applicant are that the applicant is the person, who has siphoned the amount of Rs.39,40,330/- and absconded with the possession of all the above mentioned money without approving the loan or giving any receipts to the farmers. The applicant has been alleged to be provided with a house on rent by another accused Avinash Manwar to carry out meetings under the garb of purchase of pickles at Jaikisan Finance Company, Darwha. Henceforth, public were appealed to purchase loans from the said Finance company. It is the case of the
2 / 4 34-ABA-645-25 prosecution that other accused namely Pravin Uke and Avinash Manwar have been arrested in connection with the said Crime on 21.03.2025. The applicant being Director of Jaikisan Finance, a main accused has been absconded since the incident. Prima facie case is made out against the applicant by the prosecution, while he has no means of income, he paid Rs.1,90,000/- to Hirkani Mahila Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Chikhli Branch, Buldhana. It is further alleged that the applicant is constantly changing the area and committing such crimes, due to which people are suffering financial loss.
3.
Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that, upon perusal of the allegations, it clearly reflects that the accused Pravin Uke had received all the relevant documents and amount as alleged in the complaint if any. Furthermore, the present applicant is not having any concern with the alleged transaction if any took place between the complainant and Pravin Uke.
4.
It is submitted that the complainant fails to show the transaction which is fully based on documentary evidence and has not submitted a single receipt of paid amount to the present applicant as well as Pravin Uke.
3 / 4 34-ABA-645-25 5.
It is further submitted that investigating agency has already searched and seized all the record of Finance company and therefore, there is nothing to recover from the custody of present applicant. The applicant is suffering from Hemorrhage stroke (Paralysis) and since then he is taking medical treatment at Khamgaon, Buldhana.
6.
On the other hand, Mr. Phasate, learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the application. He submitted that, as per investigation, it is revealed that around 158 to 160 persons have been duped by the present applicant.
7.
Further, the learned A.P.P. submitted that, an amount of Rs. 4,52,500/- has been recovered till date as the present applicant has paid the said amount to the investors by way of agreement. Thus, the remaining amount of Rs 34,87,830/- is yet to be recovered. The said amount is the public money. The offence being economical fraud, there is a possibility of big scam and for that the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is utmost necessary to complete the chain of the crime, to detect the possibility of involvement of other accused in the said Crime. Hence, the application may kindly be rejected.
8.
The alleged offence is serious in nature and public money is involved in the said crime. Considering the role
4 / 4 34-ABA-645-25 played by this applicant, who is the main accused and Manager of Jai Kisan Finance and the entire responsibility is on the applicant, he has given assurance of giving the loan to needy persons and has siphoned the amount. Considering the role played by the applicant. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Hence, the application stands rejected.
JUDGE