Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank, Through Its Authorized Officer Shri Prakash Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3501 OF 2025 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.1989 OF 2025 Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank .....Applicant In the Matter in Between :

Yash Sudhir Jadhav ......Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent Mr. Abhishek Ingale (Through VC) with Mr. Pankajsinh Deshmukh, for the Applicant.

Mr. Sachin P. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent/Original Applicant. Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. A. B. Chavan, PSI, Ichalkaranji Police Station is present. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY 2026 P.C.:- 1.

The Applicant/Bank has filed this application for grant of permission to withdraw the amount which the accused has deposited, while releasing him on bail. The accused has deposited the amount of Rs.24,90,000/- in the trial Court. The counsel for the Applicant has stated that in earlier two matters when the co accused were released on bail, the co accused have deposited the amount in Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank. This being a case of 1/3

misappropriation of the loan amount, the said amount was deposited with Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank. The accused, having claimed parity and having been released on bail on that ground, has deposited the amount before the Trial Court. Hence, the Applicant/Bank has filed this application to withdraw the said amount.

2.

The learned counsel for the accused has opposed the application stating that though the parity is claimed, the amount is deposited as security and it will be decided after the trial on merits, whether there is any liability on him to repay the said amount to the bank or not.

3.

The learned APP, on instructions of officer present in Court, made a statement that the amount deposited before the trial Court is fixed deposited in the State Bank of India, Branch at Ichalkaranji for three years.

4.

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 5.

The Applicant/Bank is claiming the deposited amount on the ground that there are allegations of misappropriation. The accused 2/3

has deposited the amount to demonstrate his bona fides and has claimed parity. However, although parity has been claimed, he has already deposited the amount. There was a specific direction to deposit the amount in the Trial Court, and accordingly, he has deposited the same in the Trial Court. For safety, the amount has been kept in a nationalized bank, i.e., State Bank of India, Branch at Ichalkaranji Therefore, there is no question of granting the permission to withdraw the said amount.

6.

Hence, the Application stands rejected.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:

2026.02.24 21:22:13 +0530 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD 3/3