Bombay High Court
JAYESH VASANT JAINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant as the main accused has not been arrested and no satisfactory reason for his non‑arrest was shown, making the applicant’s alleged participation secondary.
Summary
The applicant, Accused No.2, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to the dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs.4,40,35,905. The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Accused No.1 (Sonali Laxman Girigosavi), had defrauded the complainant and that the applicant had assisted her. The defence argued that the dispute was civil, the main accused had not been arrested due to ill health, and the applicant was already in custody for another offence. The court examined the lack of satisfactory reasons for not arresting the main accused and held that the applicant’s role was secondary. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and disposed of the interim application.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
- Whether the allegations against the applicant constitute a cognizable offence warranting arrest.
- Whether the non‑arrest of the main accused (Accused No.1) provides sufficient ground to grant bail to the secondary accused.
- The relevance of the applicant’s prior custody in another case to the present anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- cheque bounce
- fraud
- secondary participation
- non‑arrest of main accused
- bail conditions
Judgment
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by PRACHI
PRACHI
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.10.03
18:23:12 +0530
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1975 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4382 OF 2025
Jayesh Vasant Jain … Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. …. Respondents
______________________
Mr. B.K. Barve a/w Mr. Sandeep Barve i/by B.K. Barve & Co., for
the Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.
Mr. Kuldeep Nikam (through VC) for Respondent No.3-original
complainant.
Mr. Chetan More, API, EOW, Pune City present.
______________________
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 30 SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. Heard Mr. Barve, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr.
Jadhav, learned APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and Mr.
Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.
2. By this application filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the Applicant i.e. Accused No.2 is
Page 1
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.145 of 2025
registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune City for the
offences punishable under Section 316(2) and 318(4) read with
Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, from the year 2020 to 2024,
there were business transactions between the First Informant and
Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi. The First Informant used
to sell pharmaceutical products to the Accused No.1 – Sonali
Laxman Girigosavi on credit and thereafter, the Accused No. 1 –
Sonali Laxman Girigosavi used to pay the said purchase amount to
the Applicant. In the year 2024, the Accused No.1 purchased
Pharmaceutical Products from the First Informant to the tune of
Rs.18,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores Only) and all these
pharmaceutical products were supplied on credit and the entire
amount is paid by Accused No. 1 – Sonali Laxman Girigosavi to the
First Informant and, therefore, there was a relationship of trust
between the First Informant and the Accused No.1.
4. As per the further prosecution case, the Accused No.1
introduced the Applicant i.e. Accused No. 2 to the First Informant
in or about November 2024. Thereafter certain pharmaceutical
Page 2
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
products were purchased by the Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman
Girigosavi from the First Informant on credit of an aggregate
amount of Rs.4,40,35,905/- and 60 cheques were given by the
Accused No.1- Sonali Laxman Girigosavi to the First Informant
towards repayment of said amount and the said cheques were
dishonored.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent no.3-First Informant that till Accused
no.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi was acting independently, the
business relationship between the First Informant and Accused
No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi were smooth and transparent,
however, when she came in contact with the Applicant i.e. Accused
no.2, the Accused No.1- Sonali Laxman Girigosavi started cheating
the First Informant and accordingly 60 cheques given to the
Applicant of said aggregate amount of Rs. 4,40,35,905/- were
dishonourned. It is submitted that same modus operandi has been
used with some other purchasers and, therefore, several crimes are
registered against the Applicant and that the Applicant has
committed the crime.
Page 3
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
6. It is submitted by Mr. Barve that the dispute, if any, is of a
civil nature. It is submitted that the main allegations are against
Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi and she has not been
arrested. It is submitted that the allegation against the Applicant is
that the said Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi has cheated
the First Informant and the Applicant – Accused No.2 has helped
her in cheating the First Informant.
7. Mr. Barve relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the
case of Binoy Jacob Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 1 and more
particularly on paragraph 8 of the same.
8. It is further submitted that the Applicant is already arrested
in another crime. It is submitted that this Court has protected the
Applicant by an order dated 4 November 2025 which has been
subsequently modified on 10 November 2025. It is, therefore,
submitted that the said protection be continued.
9. On the other hand, learned APP for the Respondent Nos.1
and 2-State submits that the offence is very serious and there are
antecedents of the same nature against the Applicant and,
therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary.
1 1993 SCC OnLine Del 53
Page 4
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
10. It is submitted by Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel for
Respondent No.3-Original Complainant that systematically, the
First Informant has been cheated by both the Accused. With
respect to the contention that Accused No.1 who is the main
Accused has not been arrested, it is submitted that Accused No.1 is
suffering from some disease and she is bedridden and, therefore,
Accused No.1 has not been arrested.
11. Mr. Barve, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
pointed out a photograph of Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman
Girigosavi taken when she was in police station. It is submitted by
Mr. Jadhav, learned APP that the Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman
Girigosavi attended police station for investigation of some other
crime and not for the subject crime.
12. Perusal of the record shows that even as per the prosecution
case, there are business relationships between the First Informant
and Accused No.1- Sonali Laxman Girigosavi from the year 2020
onwards. In fact, in the year 2024, Accused No.1 had purchased
various pharmaceutical products of value of Rs.18,00,00,000/- and
the said pharmaceutical products were supplied on credit and the
Page 5
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
said amount has been paid by Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman
Girigosavi to the First Informant.
13. It is further required to be noted that even as far as the
transaction which is the subject matter of the subject F.I.R. is
concerned for a sum of Rs.4,40,35,905/-, the cheques were issued
by Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi and the said cheques
have been dishonoured. The cheques were not issued by the
present Applicant. The purchase of the pharmaceutical products is
also by Accused No.1. Thus, Accused No.1-Sonali Lakman
Girigosavi is the main accused.
14. Although, it is the contention of the Mr. Jadhav, learned APP
and also of Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel appearing for the
First Informant that Accused No.1 is bedridden, Mr. Barve, learned
counsel appearing for the Applicant has pointed out a photograph
showing that Accused No.1 has attended the police station and
submitted that however, she has not been arrested. Mr. Jadhav,
learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, states
that the health of Accused No.1 is not good and therefore, she has
not been arrested and as far as the photograph of Accused No.1 is
concerned, which shows that Accused No.1 had attended the police
Page 6
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
station, he submits that Accused No.1 attended the police station
in some other F. I. R. and not with respect to the present crime.
Thus, the approach of the Investigating Officer seeking to oppose
this Anticipatory Bail Application, as far as the Applicant is
concerned, who has a secondary role and to submit that the
Accused No.1 is bedridden and, therefore, she has not been
arrested is totally contrary to the factual position as the submission
raised regarding the said photograph showing that Accused No.1
has attended the police station. Assuming that the Accused No.1
has attended police station in some other F.I.R. clearly shows that
the contention raised that as she is bedridden and, therefore, not
arrested is contrary to the factual position.
15. All the 60 cheques of an aggregate value of Rs.4,40,35,905/-
which have been given to the First Informant were issued by the
Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi and the said cheques were
dishonoured. The entire prosecution case is on the basis of said
dishonoured cheques.
16. In view of the above position, judgement of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Binoy Jacob (supra) where it is stated that
there is no doubt that the investigating agency, in its discretion has
to decide as to which Accused is to be arrested and at what stage.
Page 7
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
However, if main Accused is not arrested then, satisfactory reasons
for not arresting the main Accused have to be given by the
prosecution. This is the case where the reason given for not
arresting the main Accused is that the main Accused i.e., Accused
No.1 is bedridden and when a photograph showing that the main
Accused has attended the police station is shown, it is contended
that main Accused has attended the police station in some other
F.I.R., clearly shows that no satisfactory reasons are set out for not
arresting the main Accused. In any case, reading of the entire F.I.R.
shows that the only allegation against the Applicant is that he has
assisted the main Accused i.e., Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman
Girigosavi in committing the crime.
17. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out for
grant of Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly, the following order is
passed :-
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection
with C.R. No.145 of 2025 registered with the
Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune City the Applicant is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond
in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two solvent
Page 8
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
sureties each in the like amount.
(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when necessary.
(c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and
residential address to the Investigating Officer and
shall keep the same updated, in case of any change
thereto.
(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.
(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witness in any manner.
(f) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
18. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
19. As the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of, nothing
Page 9
PPN
923.ABA-1975.25.DOC
survives in the Interim Application and same is disposed of.
20. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for
consideration of Anticipatory Bail of the Applicant and are of prima
facie in nature.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 10
PPN
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.