IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.977/2025 PRAVIN ALIAS PAPPU JADHAV ...APPLICANT VS HARISH VITHAL STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS CHAUDHARI …

Adv. Ghanshayam Upadhyay a/w Preksha Jain i/b Law Juris for the Digitally signed by HARISH Applicant.

VITHAL CHAUDHARI Adv. Narayan G. Rokade a/w Siddharth R. Ghodke, Abhang Date:

2025.05.09 Suryawanshi & Ramchandra Wagh for Respondent No. 2.

21:33:09 +0530 PC/3064 dhatrak Bhausaheb, Pimpalgaon Police Station.

…

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATED : MAY 7, 2025 ORDER :

1. The applicant/accused has preferred this anticipatory bail application under section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in Crime No. I-67 of 2025 registered at Pimpalgaon (B) Police Station, Pimpalgaon (B), Tq. Niphad, Dist. Nashik against him for the offences punishable under sections 318(4), 316(5) read with section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

2. This is a case wherein dues of 300 farmers are not paid, who have supplied their farm products/vegetables and their payment of around Rs. 2 crores 89 lakhs still remain unpaid. An FIR to that effect was filed and two persons were arraigned as accused. The present applicant is one of the accused. Both the accused had preferred pre- arrest bail application before the Sessions Court. On 25 March 2025, the pre-arrest bail application of both the accused was heard and rejected by the Sessions Court. I have been informed that, the co-accused has not preferred pre-arrest bail application before this Court. Admittedly, the farm products/vegetables are supplied, wherein all invoices are in the name of the present applicant.

3. The learned counsel for applicant submits that though the invoices shows that the farm products/vegetables are supplied to the present applicant, the farm products/vegetables were never supplied to the present applicant and was supplied to the co-accused Vaibhav Dheple. It is also submitted before me by the applicant that what has been referred by the informant is that the present applicant is a partner with co-accused Vaibhav Dheple, is totally an incorrect statement. No document has been produced to show that there was any kind of partnership of the present applicant with the co-accused Vaibhav Dheple. It has been argued that the present applicant is a vegetable dealer and also, he is into the business of transport, so also he is an agent and it is a practice in the APMC Market Nashik that though the farm products/vegetables are supplied to a party, the invoices are in the name of the agent. It has also been submitted that the balance payment of the farmers is roughly around Rs. 2 crores 89 lakhs and substantial payment was made by the co-accused Vaibhav Dheple. Therefore, the payment, if any, to be made to the farmers was to be made by the co- accused Vaibhav Dheple. It is further submitted that there were certain farm products/vegetables which were supplied to the applicant directly. The payment pertaining to those farm products/vegetables supplied to the present applicant, has already been made. As regards to the balance payment as alleged in the FIR around Rs. 2 crores 89 lakhs, is not to be made by the present applicant. The person, who is liable to be paid the said balance payment, would be the co-accused-Vaibhav Dheple.

4. According to me, ultimately the fact remains that the invoices are all in the name of the present applicant which draws an inference that it is the present applicant, to whom the farm products/vegetables were supplied by the farmers and hence, he would be liable to pay. It is also pertinent to note here that apart from the invoices being in the name of the present applicant, there was a settlement agreement which was tendered before this Court by the learned APP. The said settlement agreement was dated 24 December 2024, entered into between the present applicant and the complainant. As per the said settl