Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Nitin Nandkishor Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:36579

                                                  1                    BA / 1979 / 2025




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               920 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1979 OF 2025

                                      NITIN NANDKISHOR PATIL
                                              VERSUS
                                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                    ...
                                 Advocate for applicant : Mr. Kalyan Patil
                           APP for the respondent - State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
                                                    ...

                            CORAM              : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                            DATE               : 5 DECEMBER 2025

              PER COURT :


The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 133 of 2025 dated 01.03.2025 registered with Ahmedpur Police Station, District - Latur for the offences punishable under section 3(5), 336(3), 341(1), 318(4), 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The informant, an educated yet unemployed youth, was aspiring for the recruitment. It is in this backdrop, the present applicant along other accused persons, assured of securing recruitment in the Department of Indian Posts. To ensure the said job, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was obtained by the accused persons from the informant. The other three relatives of the informant also paid the amount to the accused persons through the UPI payment mode.

2 BA / 1979 / 2025

3. In the process, the forged marksheets were prepared and even fake website was also created by the accused persons. Thereafter, on numerous occasions, amounts were extracted from the informant and other similarly situated unemployed youths.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence and has no concern with the alleged crime. The transactions mentioned in the case are, in fact, related to the operation of the oil agency which the applicant manages. Hence, prayed to allow the application.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the application, submitting that the complicity of the applicant is rather evident from the complaint and the statements recorded during the course of investigation, wherein it is revealed that the applicant has received a huge amount to the tune of Rs.46,00,000/-.

Learned APP is further submits that the complaint received to the Police Officer, is a tip of the iceberg and entire iceberg is submerged underneath. The magnitude of the alleged criminality has not yet been fully exposed and the release of applicant may hinder the process of trial.

6. Upon considering the submissions and material placed on record including the charge sheet, prima facie, indicates and 3 BA / 1979 / 2025 establishes that the present applicant had received the money in cash, vis-a-vis UPI payment mode and the statements to that effect have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. It further transpires that the marksheets and other fake documents were prepared and a fake website was also created by the accused persons in order to dupe the unemployed youths under the pretext of providing the employment and equally, the fake messages were also sent to the informant and the similarly situated candidates.

7. Thus, the evidence collected by the prosecution is, prima facie, overwhelming sufficient to establish the applicant's complicity in the entire episode of creating forged documents, a fake website, and a forged record .

8. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the request of the applicant, to be enlarged on bail, does not warrant any consideration.

9. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.

[ SACHIN S. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE arp/