Sandip Subhashrao Deshmukh v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1561 OF 2025 Sandip Subhashrao Deshmukh ....Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ayush Pasbola, Mr. Chinmay Godse and Ms. Janaki Patil for the Applicant. Mr. M.G.Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________ by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:
2026.02.04 10:50:23 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 247 of 2024 registered with Manmad City Police Station, Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). 2.
It is prosecution's case that the applicant is the agent of Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Company Ltd. He took the amount from the customers for depositing in the company, but did not deposit the said amount. He misappropriated the amounts by making false and forged documents.
3.
It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has returned all the amount alleged against him to concerned. The supplementary statement of the first informant is recorded. In the said statement, he has stated that the applicant has returned amount to the customers. There are no allegations of preparing false and forged documents against the applicant in the supplementary statement. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and seven months. There is no progress in the trial and requested to allow the application. 4.
It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has misappropriated the amount given by the customers. The applicant has prepared false and forged documents and cheated the customers. If the applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. One more crime is registered against the applicant. Hence, requested to reject the application.
5.
I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. In supplementary statement of the first informant, he has stated that the applicant has returned amount to the customers. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and seven months. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
i.
The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 247 of
2024 registered with Manmad City Police Station, Nashik, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- on furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount. ii.
The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.
iii.
The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. 6.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of. 7.
It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
8.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)