The Bombay High Court has denied the anticipatory bail application of Mahesh Sahebrao Yeole, a marketing inspector accused of misappropriating 6466.42 quintals of paddy, valued at ₹2.73 crore. The case, filed at Kinhavali Police Station, Thane, includes charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and using forged documents to cheat under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Allegations Against Yeole
According to the prosecution, between October 2022 and March 2023, Yeole allegedly colluded with others to fraudulently acquire paddy from the Maharashtra State Tribal Development Corporation. The paddy was obtained using counterfeit hundis (financial documents) in the names of farmers. This fraudulent activity resulted in a significant loss of paddy, valued at ₹2.73 crore, to the state corporation.
Yeole is accused of overseeing the operation and allowing the use of forged hundis to acquire the paddy. The prosecution argues that his actions were deliberate and caused a major financial loss to the government.
Defense’s Argument
Yeole’s defense contended that he was not responsible for the misappropriation, claiming that he only took charge of the godown where the paddy was stored after the fraud had already taken place. The defense stated that Yeole assumed the position of marketing inspector on April 10, 2023, after the alleged fraud, and that he promptly reported the missing paddy stock as soon as he discovered the discrepancy.
The defense argued that Yeole was being falsely implicated and had no prior criminal record. They emphasized that Yeole reported the missing stock well before the First Information Report (FIR) was filed, demonstrating his willingness to cooperate.
Prosecution’s Stand
The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that Yeole, in his role as marketing inspector, was responsible for verifying the authenticity of hundis used in the procurement of paddy. They claimed that Yeole, along with others, had accepted counterfeit hundis, which led to the unauthorized release of paddy from the godown.
Additionally, the prosecution emphasized that Yeole had not cooperated with the investigation and had evaded questioning, making his custodial interrogation necessary. They pointed out that the misappropriated paddy represented a significant financial loss, and further investigation was needed to identify other individuals involved in the fraud.
Court’s Observations
The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, observed that the case involved serious allegations of financial misappropriation, forgery, and cheating. It noted that Yeole was responsible for overseeing the godown’s operations, including verifying the authenticity of hundis. Despite Yeole’s claims of reporting the missing stock, the court found that his actions in accepting forged documents played a significant role in the fraud.
The court also noted that the timing of Yeole’s report on the missing stock, which came shortly before the filing of the FIR, raised doubts about his intentions. Based on the material presented, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence indicating Yeole’s involvement in the fraudulent scheme.
Decision
The court ruled that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary measure that should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential for obstruction of the investigation, the court determined that Yeole’s custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the fraud and identify all those involved. As a result, the court denied Yeole’s application for anticipatory bail.
Leave a Reply