Rajendra Vitthal Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra

SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2025.07.03 00:26:40 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.1088 of 2025 Balaji Dinkar Patil ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent With Anticipatory Bail Application No.1231 of 2025 Rajendra Vitthal Jadhav ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent With Anticipatory Bail Application No.1396 of 2025 Harishchandra Kunnu Rathod ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ---- Mr Sanjeev P Kadam, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms Aditi Rajput, Mr Suraj Mhadgut and Mr Prashant P Raul, for the applicants in all three ABAs.

Mr Prashant Jadhav, APP, for the respondent/ State. ---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 1 July 2025.

P.C.:

.

The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that one

Vinod Ramesh Chavan had lodged a complaint before the Lokayukt and the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, following which an enquiry committee was constituted at the Zilla Parishad, Solapur. The records of the Gram-Panchayat were examined, and a detailed enquiry was conducted. A report dated 4 September 2024 was submitted by the Block Development Officer. As per the said report, no misappropriation of government funds by the applicants was found. Subsequently, another enquiry was carried out by the Block Development Officer, and he submitted a further report dated 23 September 2024. This report also did not reveal any findings indicating misappropriation of funds by the applicants. 2.

The learned Counsel further submits that the Chairman of the Redressal Committee and the Executive Engineer lacked the authority to conduct the enquiry as per the provisions of the Grampanchayat Act. He submits that the mandatory procedure was not followed during the enquiry. Furthermore, the report does not contain any specific allegations relating to the particular work in which the alleged misappropriation is said to have occurred. According to the learned Counsel, the allegations made against the applicants are vague. He submits that there may have been certain irregularities in the Grampanchayat records; however, no illegality or

misappropriation has been committed by the applicants. The learned Counsel submits that there are no allegations indicating any transfer of funds to the personal accounts of the applicants. The complaint is filed due to personal rivalry and at a belated stage. Nevertheless, the applicants are willing to cooperate with the investigation and are ready to attend the concerned police station as and when directed by the investigating officer. 3.

The learned APP, however, seeks time to take further instructions. At his request, stand over to 30 July 2025. In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the present crime until the next date. (R.N. Laddha, J.)