The Bombay High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by a peon accused of forging court documents and misappropriating over Rs.58 lakh, holding that the gravity of the offence and lack of parity with co-accused do not warrant bail. The Court also refused to cancel the bail granted to a co-accused, emphasizing that liberty once granted cannot be withdrawn without sufficient cause.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The applicant, Naresh Laxman Dhundule, was working as a Peon in the Labour Court, Dhule. The case stems from an FIR registered at Dhule City Police Station (Crime No.35 of 2025) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 408, 380, 409, 201, 114, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Key Facts
- The applicant was accused of stealing three Fixed Deposits worth Rs.15,42,341/- and forging the signature of the Labour Judge to prepare release orders.
- An amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was recovered from the applicant’s account, while Rs.24,00,000/- was transferred to his wife’s account.
- The investigation revealed that all three accused (including the applicant and co-accused Bhupendra Shrikant Burkule) were beneficiaries of over Rs.58,00,000/-.
- The applicant was instrumental in the misappropriation, as noted by the trial court while rejecting his earlier bail application.
Procedural History
- 23.04.2025: Applicant arrested and remanded to custody.
- 05.07.2025: Co-accused Bhupendra Shrikant Burkule granted bail by the trial court in Criminal Bail Application No.587 of 2025.
- 15.07.2026: Present bail application (BA-244/2026) and cancellation bail application (ACB-15/2026) heard by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant (Naresh Laxman Dhundule)
- Argued that he was merely a Peon with no access to the Accounts Department.
- Claimed that the co-accused, Bhupendra, was responsible for the Accounts Department.
- Sought bail on the ground of parity, as Bhupendra was already granted bail.
- Submitted that Rs.22,00,000/- had already been recovered from him.
For the Respondent (State of Maharashtra)
- Opposed bail, stating that the applicant was the main accused and had forged court documents.
- Argued that the applicant was instrumental in the misappropriation of over Rs.58,00,000/-.
- Submitted that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.
Relief Sought
- BA-244/2026: Regular bail for the applicant.
- ACB-15/2026: Cancellation of bail granted to co-accused Bhupendra Shrikant Burkule.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicant, accused of forging court documents and misappropriating over Rs.58 lakh, was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused already granted bail, despite the gravity of the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle of parity with co-accused Bhupendra, who was granted bail by the trial court. It was argued that the applicant was merely a Peon with no direct role in the Accounts Department and that Rs.22,00,000/- had already been recovered from him. The counsel also pointed out that the applicant’s wife was granted anticipatory bail, further supporting the parity argument.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offence. It was submitted that the applicant was the main accused who had forged court documents and misappropriated over Rs.58,00,000/-. The counsel argued that the applicant’s role was instrumental in the crime and that the trial court had already noted his involvement while rejecting his earlier bail application. The State also opposed the cancellation of bail for co-accused Bhupendra, stating that no sufficient cause had been made out to withdraw the bail granted by the trial court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the submissions of both parties and the material on record. It noted that the applicant was accused of stealing Fixed Deposits and forging the signature of the Labour Judge to prepare release orders. The Court observed that the applicant’s role was instrumental in the misappropriation of over Rs.58,00,000/-.
"The offence is based on the documents and the investigating agency has collected all the necessary documents from the concerned departments. Now nothing has to be recovered from the present accused/applicant."
The Court also considered the trial court’s observations while granting bail to co-accused Bhupendra, which noted that the applicant’s involvement was more significant. The Court held that the gravity of the offence and the applicant’s instrumental role outweighed the parity argument.
"Taking the same into account, though chargesheet is filed, in view of gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant him benefit of bail."
Regarding the cancellation of bail for co-accused Bhupendra, the Court reiterated the settled position that liberty once granted cannot be withdrawn without sufficient cause. The Court found no such cause in the present case, as the State’s submissions were limited to the gravity of the offence without any breach of bail conditions or non-cooperation during investigation.
The Verdict
The High Court dismissed both the bail application (BA-244/2026) and the cancellation bail application (ACB-15/2026). The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail due to the gravity of the offence and his instrumental role in the misappropriation of over Rs.58,00,000/-. The bail granted to co-accused Bhupendra was not cancelled, as no sufficient cause was made out for withdrawal of liberty.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Gravity of Offence Alone Does Not Guarantee Bail
- Courts will not grant bail solely on the ground of parity with co-accused if the applicant’s role is instrumental in the offence.
- The gravity of the offence and the applicant’s involvement will be considered holistically.
Liberty Once Granted Cannot Be Withdrawn Without Sufficient Cause
- Bail once granted cannot be cancelled unless there is a breach of conditions or non-cooperation during investigation.
- The State must demonstrate sufficient cause beyond mere allegations of gravity of the offence.
Documentary Evidence and Investigative Findings Are Crucial
- Courts rely heavily on documentary evidence and investigative findings while deciding bail applications.
- Mere recovery of amounts does not absolve the applicant of liability if the offence involves forgery or breach of trust.
