Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Bombay High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. August

Shubham Chandramani Paunikar vs. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Butibori Police Station, Butibori, Tq. Hingana Dist. Nagpur

Decided on 30 August 2024• Citation: ABA/501/2024• Bombay High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


    2024:BHC-NAG:9835                                                             
                                            1                 20aba501.2024.odt   
                    IN THE HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT BOMBAY                 
                               NAGPUR   BENCH  : NAGPUR                           
                      CRIMINAL  APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 501 OF 2024                 
                       Shubham Chandramani Paunikar Vs State of Maharashtra       
             Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order           
             Coram, appearances, Court's Orders                                   
             or directions and Registrar's order                                  
                       Mr. A.Y Humne, counsel for applicant.                      
                       Mrs. R.V. Sharma, APP for non-applicant/State.             
                                 CORAM    : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE,  J.              
                                 DATED   : 30/08/ 202 4 .                         
                           1.    Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police, in
                           connection with Crime No. 338/2023 registered with Police
                           Station Butibori, Tq. Hingana, District Nagpur for the 
                           offence punishable under Section 407 read with Section 34
                           of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the applicant approached
                           this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.               
                           2.    The crime is registered on the basis of a report 
                           lodged by Jagdish Gopal Bokade, alleging that the present
                           applicant, along with co-accused Budhadip Harichandra  
                           Gajbhiye, did not pay the entire loan amount which was 
                           obtained by the group of women. It is alleged that the 
                           informant is a Branch Manager of financial institutions, i.e.,
                           Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited, Branch at Butibori. The
                           applicant was working as an agent with the said bank. There
                           were some groups of women to whom  the loans were      
                           sanctioned, and the present applicant, being an agent, was
                           communicating and  obtaining the amount  of  the       
                           installments from the said women, but he has not deposited
        rkn                                                                       

                                            2                 20aba501.2024.odt   
                           the said loan amount in their respective accounts or   
                           deposited the less amount and misappropriated the      
                           amounts. On the basis of the said report, police have  
                           registered the crime against the present applicant.    
                           3.    Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, as
                           far as the present applicant is concerned, his involvement is
                           on the basis of the false report filed by the Branch Manager.
                           He submitted that the investigating officer has issued the
                           notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., which itself is sufficient
                           to show that custodial interrogation of the present applicant
                           is not required. Moreover, the punishment provided is upto
                           seven years. In view of that, the applicant be protected by
                           granting anticipatory bail.                            
                           4.    Learned APP strongly opposed the said application
                           on the ground that, considering the misappropriation   
                           amount and the involvement of the present applicant in the
                           financial scam, the custodial interrogation of the present
                           applicant is required. In view of that, the application
                           deserves to be rejected.                               
                           5.    After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and
                           learned APP for the state, perused the recitals of the FIR,
                           from which it reveals that the FIR is lodged by the Branch
                           Manager of the said financial institutions, wherein the
                           present applicant was working as an agent. As part of the
                           financial transactions of the said financial institutions, they
                           were sanctioning the loan to various groups of women   
                           organizations. Accordingly, some organizations have    
        rkn                                                                       

                                            3                 20aba501.2024.odt   
                           obtained the loan from the bank, but the installment amount
                           was not deposited by the present applicant in their    
                           respective accounts and misappropriated the same.      
                           6.    Learned APP admitted that the notice was issued to
                           the applicant under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and the issuance
                           of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. itself is sufficient to
                           show that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is
                           not required. Moreover, the punishment provided for the
                           alleged offence is upto the seven years.               
                           7.    Considering the same, the observation of the     
                           Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil 
                           Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. [2022    
                           LiveLaw (SC) 577] is relevant, wherein it is observed that
                           Section 41 under Chapter V of the Code deals with the arrest
                           of persons. Even for a cognizable offense, an arrest is not
                           mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this      
                           provision. If the officer is satisfied that a person has
                           committed a   cognizable offense, punishable with      
                           imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven   
                           years, or which may extend to the said period, with or 
                           without fine, an arrest could only follow when he is satisfied
                           that there is a reason to believe or suspect, that the said
                           person has committed an offense, and there is a necessity for
                           an arrest. Such necessity is drawn to prevent the committing
                           of any further offense, for a proper investigation, and to
                           prevent him/her from either disappearing or tampering with
                           the evidence. He/she can also be arrested to prevent such
        rkn                                                                       

                                            4                 20aba501.2024.odt   
                           persons from making any inducement, threat, or promise to
                           any person according to the facts, so as to dissuade him
                           from disclosing said facts either to the court or to the police
                           officer.                                               
                           8.    This provision mandates the police officer to record
                           his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police
                           officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in
                           writing. Similarly, the police officer shall record reasons
                           when he/she chooses not to arrest.                     
                           9.    The consequence of non-compliance with Section   
                           41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person  
                           suspected of the offense. Section 41A deals with the   
                           procedure for appearance before the police officer who is
                           required to issue a notice to the person against whom a
                           reasonable complaint has been made,  or  credible      
                           information has been received or a reasonable suspicion
                           exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, an arrest
                           is not required under Section 41(1).                   
                           10.   Thus, issuance of the notice under Section 41-A  
                           itself is sufficient to show that, at this moment, the 
                           investigating officer has no sufficient reasons to arrest the
                           present applicant. Considering the same, application   
                           deserves to be allowed by imposing certain conditions. 
                           Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order;    
                                 a]  The criminal application is allowed.         
        rkn                                                                       

                                            5                 20aba501.2024.odt   
                                 b]  In the event of her arrest, in connection with
                                     Crime No. 338/2023 registered with police    
                                     station Butibori, Tq. Hingana, District Nagpur
                                     for the offence punishable under Section 407 
                                     read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
                                     1860, the applicant – Shubham Chandramani    
                                     Paunikar, shall be released on anticipatory bail,
                                     on executing P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with  
                                     one solvent surety in the like amount.       
                                 c]  The applicant shall attend the concerned police
                                     station once in a week on Sunday between     
                                     10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and shall cooperate 
                                     with the investigating agency.               
                                 d]  The  applicant shall not induce, threat or   
                                     promise any witnesses who are acquainted     
                                     with the facts of the present case.          
                                 e]  The  applicant shall furnish his cellphone   
                                     number and address with address proof along  
                                     with the names of his two relatives and their
                                     address and address proof.                   
                                 f]  The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
                                     Nagpur District without prior permission of  
                                     this Court.                                  
                                           The application is disposed of.        
                                           [URMILA  JOSHI-PHALKE,  J.]            
        rkn