Shahinath Vikram Parbhane v. The State Of Maharashtra

2026:BHC-AUG:16762 1 2259 - 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2259 OF 2025 Shahinath S/o Vikram Parbhane, Age : 55 years, Occu. : Agri. And Banking, R/o. Kotwali Galli, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ...

Advocate for applicant : Mr. S.G. Ladda (Through V.C.) Addl.PP for the respondent - State : Mr. A.R. Kale ...

CORAM

: SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 15 APRIL 2026 PER COURT :

Heard both sides.

2.

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in Crime no.0129 of 2024 registered with Beed City Police Station, District - Beed for the offences punishable under section 420, 406, 409, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act. 3.

The applicant is stated to be the Director of Shree Sairam Urban Multi State Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Beed. A report was lodged on 17.06.2024 by one of the depositors of the credit society that he was being given assurances of attractive returns of interest

2 2259 - 2025 @ 14 - 15 %. Relying on it, he invested various amounts from time to time. When he wanted to liquidate the investments, he was being dodged by evasive replies. Later-on, it revealed to him that other depositors were also defrauded by the accused persons. He is stated to have been deceived for Rs. 9,38,803/-. The total misappropriation turns out to be Rs.4 Crores. The applicant is arrested on 14.10.2024. The chargesheet is filed against 12 persons on 08.01.2025. 4.

Learned counsel Mr. Ladda submits that there is no incriminating material against the applicant. No trail of money is found against him. No unique client code and details of PAN number of the applicant is found by Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. Similarly, no involvement was found by National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. No investments of applicant or his family members are found with any other company.

5.

It is vehemently submitted that there is no record to show unlawful gain or diverting of funds procured from the deposits of the customers. No material is found to show that any property is purchased by the applicant. Funds invested by the Co-operative Society is available but those are seized and unable to be refunded. No fault can be attributable to the applicant. He is already released on bail in CR No. 568 of 2024. There are in all 163 witnesses and trial is

3 2259 - 2025 likely to consume considerable period. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to him.

6.

Per contra, learned APP submits that grounds of arrest were communicated on 14.10.2024 itself. Applicant and co-accused have deceived number of depositors. They are being misrepresented and lured. The supplementary statement of the informant and the material collected during the investigation do show his complicity. Accused persons have invested the funds in Gulmeshwar Agro Producer Company Ltd. and Saiprasad Natural Sugar Pvt. Ltd. They refused to furnish the income tax returns.

7.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. It reveals from letter dated 30.09.2023 that Board of Directors over Shree Sairam Urban Multistate Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. was elected on 29.07.2023. His wife was Chairman, brother was Director and son was CEO. He was concerned with the administration of the Credit Society. He is alleged to have defalcated more than Rs.4 Crores in collusion with co-accused.

8.

The reply issued by Maharashtra Commodity Exchange and National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. are not decisive. There is no denial on the part of the applicant of having received deposits from the informant and others. Those are unable to

4 2259 - 2025 be refunded to them. Applicant has refused to furnish the income tax returns to the Investigating Officer which is incriminating. 9.

My attention is adverted to the letters dated 22.04.2025, respectively, issued by the Director of Gulmeshwar Agro Producer Company Ltd. and Chairman, Saiprasad Natural Sugar Pvt. Ltd. The investment of the applicant and his family members in shares is clearly indicated in the letters which are as follows : Gulmeshwar Agro Producer Company Ltd.

Sr.

Name of Share Holder Shares Valuation Shahinath Vikramrao Parbhane 748650 7486500 Laxman Vikramrao Parbhane 748650 7486500 Sadhana Shahinath Parbhane 748650 7486500 Vinayak Shahinath Parbhane 748650 7486500 Kunal Shahinath Parbhane 748650 7486500 Total 3743250 37432500 Saiprasad Natural Sugar Pvt. Ltd.

Sr.

Director/Member Name Number of Shares Share Amount Unsecured amount Total Amount % of Share Shri Shahinath Vikramrao Parbhane 2,00,000 20,00,000 3,20,07,862 3,40,07,862 10% Shri Laxmanrao Vikramrao Parbhane 2,00,000 20,00,000 3,20,07,862 3,40,07,862 10% Sau.

Sadhana Shahinath Parbhane 2,00,000 20,00,000 3,20,07,862 3,40,07,862 10% Shri Vinayhak Shahinath Parbhane 2,00,000 20,00,000 3,20,07,862 3,40,07,862 10% Total Amount Rs.

8,00,000 80,00,000 12,80,31,448 13,60,31,448 40% 10.

Applicant and the co-accused have not clarified as to the source of money to invest in the shares. They have not even supplied the income tax returns. There is every reason to infer that defalcated

5 2259 - 2025 amount has been invested in their personal name. The hard-earned money of the depositors have been deviated.

11.

Learned APP has rightly referred to and relied on the obiter dictum of the Apex Court in Rakesh Mittal V. Ajay Pai Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary and another; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 211, which read as under :- "19. Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their 'person' but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life's pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders' pleas for grant of bail.

...

21. Further, the fact that respondent No. 1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, respondent No. 1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found."

12.

I find prima facie incriminating material against the applicant. Grounds of arrest have been sufficiently communicated to him on 14.10.2024 which has been acknowledged also. It reveals that

6 2259 - 2025 applicant and co-accused are involved in similar type of offences as follows :

Sr.No. Name of Police CR.No.

Offences Section Fraud Amount Station 01.

Kaij 354/2024 420, 406, 409, 120(B), 34 IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 MPID Act, 1999 84,36,000/- Talwada 213/2024 420 IPC 35,08,463/- Gevrai 270/2024 420, 406, 409, 120(B), 34 IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 MPID Act, 1999 18,00,000/- Gevrai 275/2024 420, 406, 409, 120(B), 34 IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 MPID Act, 1999 11,00,000/- 13.

I find that no case is made to enlarge the applicant on bail. 14.

Bail Application is rejected.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] JUDGE arp/