SUSHANT SHARADCHANDRA PHADNISversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:39446




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      28 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1279 OF 2026

                               SUSHANT SHARADCHANDRA PHADNIS
                                            VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

           Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Keral Mehta, Advocate i/b Mr. A. S. Kulkarni,
           Advocate for Applicant (through VC)
           Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the informant

                     WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1289 OF 2026

                                    SHILPA SUSHANT PHADNIS
                                             VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

           Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Keral Mehta, Advocate i/b Mr. A. S. Kulkarni,
           Advocate for Applicant
           Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the informant

                                                    CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                    DATED    : 31st AUGUST, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.

           0329/2026, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, District Chhatrapati

           Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2),

           316(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and under

           Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act.


           2.    The first informant, Kishor Barandwal, lodged a report with


           28 aba1279.26.odt                                                       1 of 6
Mukundwadi Police Station on 08.06.2026, stating that he had retired from

the Army and intended to invest his retirement benefits. He, along with his

relative Pawankumar Pawar, met his friend Nitin Gotpagar at Kolhapur in July

2021. According to the informant, they went to the office of K to Z Company,

where 3 to 4 persons were present. Nitin introduced them to Mr. Jalil Kirangi

and others. Jalil, Sachin and Vaibhav were stated to be Directors of the said

company. They provided information regarding the company and assured the

informant of returns on his investment at the rate of 15% per annum. The

informant further states that, in the meantime, he was introduced to

applicant-Sushant Phadnis (accused No.5), who is a Chartered Accountant. It

is alleged that applicant-Sushant also participated in discussions regarding the

affairs of K to Z Company, as well as the investment and returns thereon.

According to the informant, applicant-Sushant assured him of good returns

and, relying upon such assurance, he invested money with K to Z Company.

From time to time, he invested a total sum of Rs.1,24,00,000/-. It is stated

that some returns were received by him till 19.10.2023. Thereafter, since no

further returns were received, the informant approached co-accused Jalil.


3.    The co-accused informed the informant about establishing another

company in the name of Nextech Vision Pvt. Ltd., wherein the present

applicants were Directors, and stated that the returns on the investment

would be paid through the said company. Since a total amount of



28 aba1279.26.odt                                                         2 of 6
Rs.2,37,78,550/- was due and payable in terms of the agreement dated

02.01.2023 executed between the informant and co-accused Jalil, cheques

amounting to Rs.50 lakhs were issued, which were dishonoured. On the basis

of these allegations, the aforesaid offences came to be registered.


4.    Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that, though the

allegations in the First Information Report indicate that applicant-Sushant

participated in discussions regarding the investment, the said allegation has

no substance in view of the agreement dated 12.02.2024 executed between

the informant and co-accused Jalil, which indicates that the applicant had no

concern with the said transaction or the investments made by the informant.

It is further submitted that the informant had executed an affidavit dated

27.02.2024, clearly stating that the present applicants had no concern with

the said crime or with the investment made by the informant with K to Z

Company. It is therefore submitted that, on the basis of the documents placed

on record, the applicants have no nexus with the crime in question and are,

therefore, entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail.


5.    Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the informant

opposed the said submissions. Learned Advocate for the informant submitted

that the affidavit executed by the informant on 27.02.2024 was executed on

the assurance given by the applicants that the money would be repaid and,

therefore, the said affidavit by itself would not establish the innocence of the


28 aba1279.26.odt                                                         3 of 6
applicants. It is further submitted that the agreement between applicant-

Sushant and co-accused Jalil is a sham document and that the said document

was executed with a view to transferring the money earned through the

alleged crime. It is further submitted that, unless the applicants are taken into

custody, effective investigation into the crime would not be possible.


6.    Learned APP also opposed the grant of relief to the applicants by

submitting that there are allegations against the applicants in the First

Information Report which prima facie indicate their complicity in the crime.

During the course of hearing, this Court specifically made a query to the

learned APP as to whether there was any evidence to show that the

agreements between applicant-Sushant and co-accused Jalil, namely, the

agreements dated 29.04.2022 relating to purchase of properties and the

agreement dated 10.01.2024 relating to cancellation thereof, were sham or

bogus documents, or whether there was any evidence to show the alleged

money trail, as suggested by the learned Advocate for the informant. Learned

APP, upon going through the investigation papers, answered the said query in

the negative.


7.    Applicant-Sushant is a Chartered Accountant and there are allegations

against him that he induced the informant to invest money with the co-

accused in K to Z Company. Apart from this allegation, it is also alleged that

applicant-Sushant assured repayment of the money and that the co-accused


28 aba1279.26.odt                                                          4 of 6
informed the informant that the money would be paid through Nextech Vision

Pvt. Ltd., which is owned by the applicants. Though such allegations have

been made, they are not supported by any material evidence. On the contrary,

the agreement executed between the informant and co-accused Jalil indicates

that there was no inducement on the part of the present applicants in respect

of the investment made by the informant with the co-accused.


8.    Moreover, there is an affidavit executed by the informant himself on

27.02.2024, indicating that the applicants had no concern with the crime in

question. In the light of these facts, there is no reference to these documents

in the First Information Report. Though it is now sought to be argued on

behalf of the learned Advocate for the informant that the affidavit was

executed in the hope of receiving repayment of the money, in the absence of

any reference to or disclosure of the said documents in the First Information

Report, this Court finds it difficult to accept the said submission. In any case,

the agreement executed between the informant and co-accused Jalil prima

facie indicates that there was no inducement on the part of the applicants in

relation to the crime in question.


9.    In any case, there is no allegation whatsoever against applicant-Shilpa

Phadnis (accused No.4). There is not even an allegation against her that she

induced the informant to invest money in the company of the accused.

Though there are allegations against applicant-Sushant to that effect, the


28 aba1279.26.odt                                                          5 of 6
documents placed on record indicate otherwise. Having regard to the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, the liberty of the applicants deserves to be

protected. Hence, the following order:

                                     ORDER

(i)    Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1289/2026 is allowed in terms of
interim relief order dated 20.07.2026.
(ii)     Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1279/2026 is allowed in following
terms:
              (a) In the event of arrest of applicant-Sushant
              Sharadchandra Phadnis in connection with Crime No.
              0329/2026, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station,
              District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences
              punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) read with
              Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and under
              Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, he shall be released on
              bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
              Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount.

              (b) He shall attend the concerned police station as and
              when called by the Investigating Officer.

              (c)   He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

              (d) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
              whatsoever.

              (e) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
              agency for further investigation.

10. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the

concerned Police Station.

                                                        ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




28 aba1279.26.odt                                                            6 of 6