Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Kolhapur Circuit Bench

Order Date: 28 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Shivaji Pandurang Mahadik; Respondents – State of Maharashtra and others.
  • Crime No.: 60 of 2026, registered with Alore Police Station, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri.
  • Statutory Provisions: Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 146 and 147 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960; Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
  • Background: An audit report covering 01‑04‑2023 to 31‑03‑2024 for Chhatrapati Shivajiraje Shaskiya‑Nimshaskiya Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit (Pophali, Tal. Chiplun) identified grave irregularities. Seven loans were allegedly disbursed to ineligible borrowers on forged documents without eligibility verification. The cash‑credit facility was secured from Ratnagiri District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, signed by the society’s directors.
  • Allegations: The audit implicated the society’s office bearers, particularly Chairman Santosh Ghadge, for sanctioning loans on 14‑02‑2024 and causing loss to the cooperative. Mahadik, a director until 13‑03‑2024, was alleged to have colluded and signed for the cash‑credit facility.
  • Applicant’s Submissions: Mahadik contended he resigned on 10‑03‑2024 (effective 11‑03‑2024) and was not present at the 14‑02‑2024 meeting. He filed complaints on 13‑01‑2025, 14‑01‑2025, 04‑11‑2025 and 07‑03‑2026, pointing to Chairman Ghadge as the main perpetrator. He offered to cooperate with the investigation.
  • Respondent’s Submissions: The State argued Mahadik’s representations were post‑resignation and that his role as director made him jointly responsible for the disbursements. They asserted incriminating material showed his collusion and that custodial interrogation was necessary.
  • Court’s Observations: The court noted the audit report does not specifically incriminate Mahadik. It accepted that he was absent from the sanction meeting and that a single director cannot be solely blamed for the loan channelisation. The court found sufficient basis to grant interim protection.

Final Outcome

  • The anticipatory bail application was allowed.
  • Mahadik shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one or more solvent sureties of equal amount.
  • Conditions imposed:
  • (a) No tampering with prosecution evidence or contacting prosecution witnesses.
  • (b) Report to the concerned police station between 12:00 a.m. and 04:00 p.m. every Saturday.
  • (c) Provide a contact number of himself or a close relative/friend to the Investigating Officer.
  • (d) Surrender his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card, if any, to the Investigating Officer.
  • (e) Cooperate for expeditious disposal of the trial and attend court dates punctually.
  • The anticipatory bail application is disposed of accordingly.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Cooperative Loan Fraud