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.
- Nature of Proceeding: Criminal Application No. 1039 of 2026 seeking to set aside the order dated 17‑03‑2026 which had allowed cancellation of bail originally granted on 27‑12‑2017.
- Background: The bail granted on 27‑12‑2017 required the applicant to execute a personal bond of Rs 30,000, cooperate with investigators, not tamper with evidence, attend Sarkarwada Police Station as directed, not misuse his position as a Director, not alienate any property of the company NDTA, not withdraw cash of NDTA with criminal intent, and attend all court dates.
- Alleged Violation: The Sessions Court held that the applicant violated the “no alienation of NDTA property” condition after NDTA executed twelve property‑transfer transactions (details on page 58 of the bail‑cancellation application). The prosecution argued that the applicant signed a board resolution dated 14‑04‑2023 authorising alienation, indicating criminal intent.
- Intervenors’ Submissions:
- Counsel for the applicant argued that the board resolutions were passed by the company’s directors, the applicant abstained from voting, and his signatures were merely certification, not decision‑making.
- The original complainant’s counsel highlighted a specific resolution signed exclusively by the applicant, but maintained it was merely a directory authorisation.
- Additional intervenors raised civil‑law concerns about a lease‑sale transaction (Sr. No. 8) and sought injunctive relief, which the court declined to adjudicate.
- Court’s Observations:
- The court noted that the board resolutions demonstrate the company’s independent decision‑making and that the applicant, as a director, did not exhibit criminal intent in the alienation of the properties.
- The court declined to conduct a “fishing and roving inquiry” into the bail‑condition breach and held that any factual disputes should be addressed in the separate FIR proceedings already filed.
Final Outcome
- The order dated 17‑03‑2026 allowing cancellation of bail is quashed and set aside.
- The original bail order dated 27‑12‑2017 stands confirmed, including the Rs 30,000 bond and all stipulated conditions.
- The application for cancellation of bail filed on 13‑10‑2025 is rejected.
- Any non‑bailable warrant issued on the basis of the 17‑03‑2026 order is cancelled.
- All intervenors’ contentions are kept open without the court expressing any view on the merits of the three FIRs related to the alleged property alienations.
- Criminal Application No. 1039 of 2026 and the pending Interim Applications Nos. 2699 of 2026 and 2605 of 2026 are disposed of in these terms.
Topics: Bail Litigation, Corporate Director Liability