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 6, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Santosh Namdeo Khandare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 August, 2025

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi

Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi

                                                                          cwp-938.24
                                            1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 22 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 938 OF 2024

                    SANTOSH NAMDEO KHANDARE
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                  ...
     Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde Advocate for Petitioner.
     Mr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for Resp. No.1.
                  ...

              CORAM:         SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                             SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.

               DATE :        26th AUGUST 2025

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner's prayer are two fold, which are thus:-

"B) By way of appropriate order and judgment the F.I.R. No.934/2023 dated 06/12/20223 registered with Hingoli (Town) Police Station, Tq. & District Hingoli for the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 408, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 & 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act 1999 (MPID) may kindly be quash and set aside in respect of petitioner.

B-1) The Charge-sheet No.1984603923093401 dated 14.04.2024 for the offence punishable U/s. 420, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 201 of the Indian Penal Code and U/s. 3 & 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, i.e. MPID Act & Special Case No. 36/2024 (State Vs. Dharmendra Chandrakant Kharjule and others), pending before Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-1, Hingoli, District-Hingoli may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioner.

D) As the petitioner has been illegally arrested by the Investigation Officer compensation of rupees 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

cwp-938.24 2

2. Now, as regards prayer Clause "D)" is concerned, the record shows that the petitioner came to be arrested on 13 th January 2024 at 00.05 hours. There is also record bearing the signature of the petitioner that the grounds were given to him in writing and the fact of arrest was informed to his friend. The friend's signature is also appearing. Thereafter he was produced before the learned Special Judge under the MPID Act, Hingoli on the same day i.e. 13th January 2024. He was represented by an Advocate of his choice. In respect of the material not available or participation of the petitioner in the alleged crime was not shown, that was the ground that was canvassed before the learned Special Judge and in the remand order all those contentions which were raised by the petitioner have been dealt with. Thereafter it was observed that the reasons for police custody are justified and then along with other accused the petitioner was remanded to the police custody till 16 th January 2024. The petitioner has not challenged this order but thereafter it appears that the custody of the other accused persons was extended till 19th January 2024, by order dated 16 th January 2024. The present petitioner then filed application for bail on 23 rd January 2024 and by reasoned order in Criminal Bail Application cwp-938.24 3 No.48 of 2024, he has been released on bail by imposing conditions, on 3rd February 2024. Now, the learned Advocate for the petitioner wants to rely on the statement by special APP that there is no evidence against the present petitioner to support the allegations and that is how the petitioner wants to say that his arrest is illegal. We do not find any substance. When by order dated 13th January 2024, the police custody was granted and thereafter when the investigation was carried out, till 3 rd February 2024 if the prosecution could not get any evidence against the petitioner, that does not mean that the arrest is illegal and then he would be entitled for compensation. Therefore, as regards prayer clause "D)" is concerned, the Writ Petition stands dismissed at the threshold.

3. As regards prayer clauses B) and B1) are concerned, the case is made out for issuing notice.

4. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned APP waives service for all the respondents. Stand over to 30 th September 2025.




[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR]                  [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
      JUDGE                                      JUDGE

asb/AUG25