Rakesh Prasad Udayraj Shahu v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur

58aba907.2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 907 OF 2025 (Rakesh Prasad Udayraj Shaju Vs. The State, thr PSO, PS, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur) ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. P.K. Bazalwar, Advocate for applicant.

Mr N.R. Rode, APP for respondent /State.

CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.

DATE : 20.01.2026.

Heard.

2.

The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime no. 673/2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur. 3.

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has not prepared any forged documents. Though, he may have suppressed some facts but that cannot be termed as forgery. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the documents are with Canara Bank, Vijaya Bank, Shri Ram City Union Housing Finance Ltd, Nagpur and Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

4.

Learned APP has opposed the application on the grounds that the applicant has not cheated just one bank but total four banks and huge public money is involved in the crime. It is further contended that similar type of offences are registered

58aba907.2025.odt against the applicant.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP and having gone through the case diary, it is revealed that initially the applicant had availed loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from Canara Bank as well as from City Union Housing Finance Limited to the tune of Rs. 55 lakhs by mortgaging immovable property. Then again, the applicant has mortgaged the same property with Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank and obtained a loan of Rs. 42 lakhs. Thereafter, the applicant has again mortgaged the same property to Vijaya Bank and obtained loan of Rs. 29.21 lakhs. All these subsequent mortgages with Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank and Vijaya Bank have been executed without redemption of the property from Canara Bank.

6.

Prima facie, it seems that there is involvement of the applicant in the crime, who has mortgaged the same property to Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank and Vijaya Bank which was already mortgaged with Canara Bank. Not only this, similar type of offences are registered against the applicant and therefore, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected.

JUDGE Belkhede