Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6155
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J
Chintaman s/o Gulabrao Wanjari – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Cyber Police Station, Nagpur – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.676 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Akshay A. Naik, Mr. G. S. Gour
For the Respondents: Mr. D. V. Chauhan, Mr. N. B. Jawade
The court ruled that significant involvement in creating fraudulent IDs led to substantial financial loss, thus bail was rejected due to the ongoing investigation.
Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66(c) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - The applicant is accused of creating fake Shalarth IDs for the withdrawal of wages by teachers from non-existent schools, resulting in substantial loss to the government. - The investigation indicates involvement and significant financial implications, prompting the court to reject bail. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Bail - Custodial interrogation - Necessity for interogation of accused not demonstrated; reliance on established protocols is inadequate for incarceration. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested following allegations of involvement in fraudulent creation of Shalarth IDs for salary withdrawals by non-existent educational institutions, leading to substantial losses. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The investigation is ongoing, and due to the evidence of potential financial crime, the applicant's bail application is rejected. (Para 8)
Issues: The potential involvement of the applicant in financial malpractice and necessity for custodial interrogation prior to charges being filed. (Paras 5-7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the role of the applicant and the implications of the alleged actions in regard to state financial loss. Bail cannot be granted due to ongoing investigations and the potential for obstruction of justice. (Paras 4, 8)
Result: Application for bail rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusation of fraud through fake ids. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. role and responsibilities of officials. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. opposition to the bail application. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. importance of the investigation stage. (Para 7) |
| 5. decision to reject the bail application due to potential obstruction. (Para 8) |
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 29.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.08.2025
1. The applicant came to be arrested on 22.05.2025 in connection with Crime No.24/2025 registered with Cyber Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 66 (c) of the Information Technology Act, under Sections 318 (4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
2. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by Ravindra Patil, who is working as a Junior Administrative Officer at the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, since 01.09.2021. The said office had received complaints about the creation of bogus Shalartha IDs and withdrawal of salary on the basis of the same, by the teachers of private unaided schools, which are not in existence. Therefore, on 23.08.2024 a Committee to examine these allegations was formed. During the inquiry, it revealed that without there being creation of Shalarth IDs by the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, the Shalarth IDs were created, without the draft for the same, being generated by the office of Deputy Director. A detailed complaint was filed in which a list of 680 fake IDs were verified, in which the original orders for creating the Shalarth IDs were not passed. Those were created by using the online ID and password dishonestly, since 20.03.2019. Upon such detailed complaint being received, the crime was registered against the present applicant.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Akshay Naik for the applicant, who submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 20.03.2019, the authority to enter names of teaching and non-teaching staff of aided schools into the Shalarth system is vested with the Divisional Deputy Director of Education. Proposals for such approvals are to be routed through the Shalarth system, verified by the Committee and acted upon in accordance with rules, with subsequent issuance of Shalarth IDs orders. On 07.11.2012, the school Education Department issued a Government Resolution introducing the Shalarth system a computerized platform for processing Shalarth salary payments of employees working in schools managed by Zilla Parishads, Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and private managements. In accordance with the resolution, data pertaining to all teaching and non-teaching staff was required to be uploaded onto the Shalarth system. The responsibility for uploading this data was specifically entrusted to the headmaster of the concerned school. Thereafter, such data was to undergo verification and certification by the Block Education Officer and the Education Officer (Primary) of the Zilla Parishad for teachers employed in the school under the Zilla Parishad. In the case of employees serving in a private primary school, the task of verification and certification was assigned to the Superintendent (Primary) and the Pay and GPF Unit. The role of the Education Officer was limited to merely countersigning the data after the verification and certification process had already been completed by the appropriate Pay Unit. Similarly, in the context of Secondary and Higher Secondary schools, the Superintendent (Secondary) Pay Unit was responsible for verifying and certifying the data, while the Education Officer (Secondary) was only required to countersign. This clearly indicates that neither the Education Officer (Primary) nor the Education Officer (Secondary) holds any responsibility of verifying or certifying the uploaded data; rather, such responsibility is vested entirely with the respective Pay Units.
4. He further submitted that Clause 3 of the Government Resolution furt
