Ketan Arun Kadam v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1320 OF 2026 Ketan Arun Kadam ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Suddep Pasbola, Senior Advocate, a/w Niranjan Mudargi i/b Wesley Menezes, W. Pathan, Aditya Iyer, Ms. K. Mehta, Ayush Pasbola, Yash Atre and Advait Helekar for the Applicant Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr.Santosh Kadam P.I. and Santosh Tore P.I. EOW. Unit-6 Mumbai

CORAM:

R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATED:

22nd APRIL, 2026 PC:- 1.

By this application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with CR. No. 50 of 2025 registered with EOW Unit -VI, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ( for short I.P.C.) 2.

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that in connection with Mithi River Desilting project undertaken by

Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai. An investigation team was constituted under economic offence wing and the investigation was conducted. During the course of the preliminary inquiry certain facts were discovered which amounted to commission of cognizable offences in relation to the execution of Mithi River Desilting work, there is allegation that several contractors submitted false memorandum of understanding and submitting documents relating to dumping ground including 7/12 extract and Grampanchayat No Objection etc. to storm water drain department of MCGM (SWD). It was further found that certain properties were shown as designated dumping sites, the MOUs were found to be forged and executed without their consent and that no silt had actually been dump on the said land as mentioned in the document. It is also claimed that company of the present applicant in collusion with others including contractors have duped the corporation for huge amount running in crores. There is allegation against the present applicant that the company to which he was representing entered memorandum

of understanding with the contractors in respect of providing the contractors with two machines for Mithi River Desilting project work and in fact those machines were not procured and the amounts are siphoned. In so far as the investigation is concerned, chargesheet has been filed against the applicant and co-accused.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submit that the owner of the company in which applicant is CEO, who has said to have entered into bogus memorandum of understanding in order to allegedly facilitate contractors to secure contracts is already enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. It is his submission that the allegation against the present applicant can only be seen at the most be sustained in respect of the company he is representing having incurred expenditure for the committee, which was constituted in the year 2020 for the purpose of studying the project. It is his submission that there is sufficient material on record in the chargesheet indicating that the two machines which were lent to the contractors were acting procured by these

companies. It is his further submission that no contract has been allotted to the applicant of Desilting work and therefore, grievance in respect of Desilting work cannot be attributed to the applicant. He further drew attention of this Court to the remarks passed by the concerned authorities with regard to the work being done which is further supported by the views and Photographs showing presence of responsible officer of Corporation at the Desilting site. It is submitted that since chargesheet has been filed. Further custody of the applicant is not necessary.

4.

Learned APP opposes the application, firstly, submitting that here in this case huge amount has been mis- appropriated by making arrangement such as the contractors being forced to avail services of providing machines from applicants companies only. It is submitted that there is action taken against the officers of the corporation for committing such act in collusion with applicant and companies represented by him. It is further argued that the bail granted to co-accused - Jay Joshi is on the ground that he was not signatory to any

document. In this regard reference is made to the documents in the chargesheet indicating applicant having executed the same. It is submitted that order of grant of bail to the coaccused has been taken in respect before this Court. On these amongst other contentions he seeks rejection of the bail. 5.

Prima-facie, perusal of the record and allegations against the applicant indicates that the applicant or companies represented by him were not allotted with the contract of Desilting work and they were not responsible for actual work under contract.

6.

Only allegation against the present applicant in the companies represented by him is that the applicant facilitated the contractors to obtain contracts from Municipal Corporation and without procuring two machines for Desilting, money is received. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that it was the Municipal Corporation and its authorities who allotted the contracts to the contractors who were not having the machines with them for carrying out Desilting work. Thus, it is clear that Corporation permitted the

contractors engage services of others for the purpose of providing of such machines to execute the work in such circumstances it cannot be said on the face of it that any illegality has been committed by the applicant and his company for providing such machines to the contractor. 7.

The next contention is about applicant though can enter into memorandum of understanding with the contractors for the purpose of providing of two machines but in fact di not provide any of them to the concerned. Prima-facie, perusal of the record however indicates that there is documentary evidence on record showing procurement of these two machines and the same being allotted to the contractors by carrying out Desilting. Apart from this there are documents indicating that the higher authorities of the corporation certified the said work and they were also seen at the spot of Desilting inspecting the work being done. Thus, prima-facie, this Court finds substance in the contention of the applicant that the documents on record do not support the allegations against the present applicant.

8.

In the light of these facts, when chargesheet has been filed, applicant cannot be kept in custody by way of pre-trial sentence. Applicant has no criminal history, He is not likely flee from justice.

9.

Hence, following order:-

ORDER

a) The applicant shall be released on bail in in connection with 50 of 2025 registered with EOW Unit -VI, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

b) The applicant shall attend the proceedings before the Trial Court on every date, except when exempted, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

c) The application stands disposed of.

R. M. JOSHI, J.

{