Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: August 28, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant Ajay Pramod Shrivastav vs. State of Maharashtra (Respondent). Interim applicants include Maharashtra Samaj Seva Sangh, Nashik and intervenor Satish Philip Kalsekar.
  • Background: Shrivastav was granted bail on 27‑12‑2017 by the Sessions Court on execution of a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions: cooperate with investigating authority, not tamper with evidence, attend Sarkarwada police station as required, not misuse his position as Director, not alienate any property of NDTA, not withdraw NDTA cash with criminal intent, and attend all court dates.
  • Alleged Violation: On 17‑03‑2026 the Sessions Court ordered cancellation of bail, asserting violation of the “no alienation of NDTA property” condition. The order cited 12 specific property transfer transactions by NDTA (details on page 58 of the bail‑cancellation application) and argued that Shrivastav participated in those alienations.
  • Defence Submissions: Shrivastav’s counsel argued that the transactions were authorized by separate Board Resolutions of NDTA, that Shrivastav abstained from voting on alienation decisions, and that his signatures on subsequent director resolutions were merely certifications, not evidence of criminal intent. The Board Resolutions (including one dated 14‑04‑2023) were submitted as annexures.
  • Opposition: The original complainant’s counsel contended that at least one resolution dated 14‑04‑2023 was signed exclusively by Shrivastav, suggesting involvement. However, the counsel also noted that the resolution was merely a directory authorizing another director to execute lease deeds, not a decision to alienate property.
  • Intervenor Contentions: Three intervenors raised separate issues:
  • One intervenor (Mr. Tiwari) highlighted a lease deed conflict concerning a property listed as Sr. No. 8, asserting a civil dispute and seeking injunctive relief in a civil court, not criminal intent.
  • Another intervenor (Mr. Shakya) emphasized the need to examine criminal intent, arguing it is a separate cause of action.
  • The third intervenor (Mr. Shinde) reiterated that the Board Resolutions demonstrate the company’s independent decision‑making and that Shrivastav’s role was limited.
  • Court’s Observations: The bench noted that the Board Resolutions clearly show the company, a distinct legal entity, authorized the alienations. The court declined to conduct a “fishing and roving inquiry” into criminal intent within the bail‑cancellation application, stating such factual determinations belong to the pending FIR investigations.
  • Pending FIRs: The court acknowledged three separate FIRs filed concerning the 12 property alienations, leaving those matters open for investigation without expressing any view on their merits.

Final Outcome

  • The order dated 17‑03‑2026 cancelling bail is quashed and set aside.
  • The application for cancellation of bail filed on 13‑10‑2025 is rejected.
  • The original bail order dated 27‑12‑2017 remains confirmed.
  • Any non‑bailable warrant issued on the basis of the cancelled order is annulled.
  • All intervenor contentions are kept open without the court rendering any merit‑based decision.
  • The pending interim applications (Nos. 2699/2026 and 2605/2026) are disposed of.

Topics: Criminal Law, Bail, Corporate Governance