Bombay High Court
SURYA PRAKASHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- FARHAN P DUBASH
Holding
In the absence of specific material showing that custodial interrogation is indispensable and considering the applicant's prior interim protection, the court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Surya Prakash, proprietor of Winmin Metals, who was accused of cheating the Daund Sugar factory by tampering with weighing scales using electronic chips, leading to a loss of about Rs. 3 crores. The FIR alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the applicant had previously been denied bail by an Additional Sessions Judge who cited the need for custodial interrogation. The applicant argued that the FIR was delayed, lacked substantive evidence, and that he had already been granted interim protection in two related cases. The State contended that the seriousness of the alleged fraud and the pattern of similar complaints warranted custody. The Court, applying the principles from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, found no specific material justifying custodial interrogation and, noting the prior interim protections, granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged large‑scale cheating and manipulation of weighing equipment.
- Whether custodial interrogation is indispensable for the investigation at this stage.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the source of the complaint affect the bail decision.
- Whether prior interim protection in related FIRs influences the grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter.
- How the balance between a fair investigation and protection against harassment, as laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, should be applied.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- fraud
- electronic tampering
- weighing scale manipulation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- custodial interrogation
- bail conditions
- commercial fraud
Judgment
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1382 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
AMOL
Surya Prakash ]
AMOL PREMNATH
PREMNATH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.06.03
18:14:45
+0530
Age: 25 Years, Occ: Service ]
R/at: No. 207, Bajanai Kovil Street, ]
Vandalur, Unaimanchery, Kolapakkam, ]
Melakottaiyur Post, Chengalpet ]
Tamil Nadu 600127 ] .. Applicant
V/s.
1. The State Of Maharashtra ]
through Sr. PI, Daund Police Station, ]
District Pune. ]
2. Vaibhav Tukaram Markad ]
R/o Niravaj Gaon, Ratnaprabha Niwas, ]
Samarth Nagar, Gangurde Road, ]
Behind Bhandari Hospital, ]
Baramati, Pune. ] .. Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Hrishikesh P. Giri a/w Mr. Swapnil R. Chopade & Mr. Abhineet N. Pange
for Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan – APP for Respondent - State.
Mr. Joel Carlos for First Informant.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
RESERVED ON : 1st JUNE 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 3rd JUNE 2026
(VACATION COURT)
Page 1 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
ORDER:
1. By the present Application, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in First
Information Report (FIR) bearing C.R. No.0037 of 2026 dated 20 th
January 2026 registered with Daund Police Station, Pune Rural, for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(2), 318(4),
336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS). The Applicant, Mr. Suryaprakash, who is the proprietor of
M/s. Winmin Metals, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu
(Winmin Metals) is named as accused no. 1 in the FIR along with Mr.
Sameer Abdulkhader Sheikh, Mr. Sandeepan Girmakar, service
engineer of Rice Lake Weighing System, and 4 to 5 other accomplices.
2. For the purposes of deciding the present Application, it is necessary to
set out the relevant facts in brief, which are set out hereunder:
i. The complainant/first informant, Mr. Vaibhav Tukaram
Markad is working in Daund Sugar Pvt. Ltd. (Factory),
Alegaon, Taluka Daund, District Pune, and, according to the
FIR, he was promoted as Sales and Marketing Manager with
effect from 1st May 2025. The FIR states that as part of his
duties, he was looking after the sale of the Factory’s products
and scrap material under the guidance of the management.
Page 2 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
ii. As noted in the FIR, the Factory is engaged in the sale of
broken-down machinery and spare parts of the machines
under maintenance or modification are kept as scrap at the
scrap yard in the Factory. As per the general procedure
followed by the Factory which is noted in the FIR, it is
revealed that pursuant to sanction from its management, a
scrap tender is issued along with a detailed list of scrap
material to scrappers, who are called to the Factory to see the
scrap and quote their rates for its purchase and thereafter, the
sale order is given to the person/party who quotes the
best/highest rate for the scrap material. The FIR then
mentions the procedure followed by the successful party
whilst lifting the scrap material from the Factory namely, the
vehicle in which the scrap material is loaded is weighed on
the Factory’s weighing scale and thereafter, the amount that is
payable to the Factory (per kg) is computed on the basis of
the said weight.
iii. The FIR reveals that in June 2024, Winmin Metals was
awarded a tender for disposal of scrap material which was
successfully completed.
iv. Thereafter, in February 2025, Winmin Metals was once again
Page 3 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
the successful bidder in another tender that was floated by the
Factory for sale of scrap material. Accordingly, between 9th
April 2025 and 15th December 2025, Winmin Metals is stated
to have lifted 36 goods trucks weighing 3,67,770 kilograms of
scrap material at the contracted rate of Rs. 33.40 per kg for
which, they have made payment of the entire consideration of
Rs. 1,22,83,518/- to the Factory. Thus, the said contract was
successfully completed without any complaints from either
party.
v. However, sometime on 10th January 2026, the complainant
received a call from one Mr. Sachin Shingare of Jarandeshwar
Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd, who is stated to have informed him that
Winmin Metals had cheated them in a contract for sale of
scrap material by tampering with the weighing scale. The
complainant was informed that when this was discovered by
Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., they were constrained to
lodge an FIR against the Applicant. Accordingly, Crime No.4
of 2026 was registered with the Koregaon Police Station,
District Satara, on 10th January 2026 for the offences
punishable under Sections 61(2), 351(2), 323, 318(4),
317(4), 316(2), 314, 309(4), 3(5), 115(2) of the BNS.
Page 4 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
vi. Pursuant thereto, the FIR states that the complainant informed
the Acting/Executive Director of the Factory about the
information received by him from Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills
Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the FIR states that upon inquiry
conducted by the Factory, it was revealed that the Applicant,
along with four to five accomplices had placed electronic
chips in the Rice Lake and Every weighing scales at the
Factory. The FIR further alleges that a remote electronic
device was used to operate the weighing scales such that
when the vehicles were loaded with scrap material and
weighed, a lesser weight than the actual weight would be
shown on the weighing scale. As a result, Winmin Metals
made lesser payment for the scrap material than what was
actually lifted by them thereby cheating the Factory and
caused them to suffer a loss of about Rs. 3 crores.
vii. Pursuant to the filing of the FIR, the Applicant was
constrained to approach the Additional Sessions Judge,
Baramati, by filing Criminal Bail Application No.260 of 2026
seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected by an
order dated 12th May 2026 mainly on the ground that since
the amount involved was substantial and the allegations in
Page 5 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
the FIR disclosed a modus operandi involving installation of
an electronic chip in the weight scales, custodial interrogation
of the Applicant was necessary for a thorough investigation.
3. Mr. Hrishikesh Giri, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant,
submits that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the
Applicant’s prayer for anticipatory bail by disposing of the Applicant’s
bail application mechanically and without proper consideration and
appreciation of the facts and material placed on record.
4. Mr. Giri further submits that the FIR itself came to be lodged on 20 th
January 2026 after a delay considering that the alleged incident is
stated to have occurred between 9 th April 2025 and 15th December
2025 without any satisfactory explanation justifying the delay.
Moreover, it is argued that the allegations made in the FIR were not
to the knowledge of the complainant but were made only because of
the information received by him via the phone call from
Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. He contends that the complainant
has not been able to produce any proof in support of the allegations
made in the FIR.
5. It is further submitted that the Applicant is a permanent resident of
Tamil Nadu, has roots in society, and is willing to face trial and that
Page 6 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
the Applicant is the sole bread earner in his family and that if he is
sent to jail, his family members would suffer undue hardship.
6. Lastly, he contends that the Applicant has already been granted
interim protection by this Court pursuant to the Crime No.4 of 2026
filed in the Koregaon Police Station, Satara and Crime No.0053 of
2026 filed in the Paranda Police Station, Osmanabad in the two other
complaints where similar allegations of cheating by altering the
weighing scale were made against him. Mr. Giri further submits that
the Applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigating agency,
attend the police station, produce documents and equipment, and
abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court.
7. On the other hand, the learned APP, Mr. Tanveer Khan opposes the
Application and submits that since three complaints (in Satara,
Osmanabad and Daund, Pune) have now been made against the
Applicant involving a similar modus operandi of manipulation of
weighing scale by using chips to cheat the opposite parties, a
thorough inquiry is required to be conducted by the investigating
officer for which custodial interrogation was necessary.
8. He further submitted that if one were to consider the 3 complaints,
the Applicant has committed cheating and fraud of more than several
Page 7 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
crores. He further submits that the Applicant is not co-operating in
the investigation and has remained absconding. He therefore submits
that the Applicant is not entitled to any pre-arrest protection.
9. Mr. Joel Carlos, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the first
informant / complainant and reiterates the submissions made by the
learned APP. He vehemently opposes anticipatory bail as sought by
the Applicant. He is at pains to point out the manner in which the
Applicant has dishonestly cheated the Factory out of crores of rupees.
He submits that looking to the nature of the crime committed, there
is every chance that the Applicant would abscond and therefore, it is
necessary that his custodial interrogation is permitted by the
investigating officer.
10. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions made
by the parties. The allegations in the FIR pertain to offences of
cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and manipulation of
weighing equipment in relation to transactions involving sale of scrap
material.
11. It is not in dispute that Winmin Metals was awarded the contract on
the basis of the price quoted by the Applicant. No fraud is alleged in
this regard. The transactions in question are commercial in nature.
Page 8 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
The FIR itself confirms that pursuant to the contract awarded to
Winmin Metals, it has made payment of Rs. 1,22,83,518/- to the
Factory towards the scrap lifted under the contract.
12. It is also relevant to note that the present FIR appears to have been
registered based on information received by the complainant and the
suspicion generated in a connected investigation involving
Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. On perusal of the record, it is
revealed that in the connected cases registered at the Koregaon Police
Station, Satara and Paranda Police Station, interim protection has
already been granted to the Applicant. In Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 286 of 2026 filed in connection with the FIR lodged
before the Koregaon Police Station, Satara, the Kolhapur Bench of
this Court (Pravin S. Patil J.) has expressly noted that the Applicant
was not present on the day of the incident and that the allegations
made were only to the effect that the trucks which were carrying
scrap material had more scrap than what was mentioned in the
receipt. By an order dated 15 th May 2026, the Applicant was therefore
granted interim protection subject to conditions imposed therein. In
the other Anticipatory Bail Application No. 755 of 2026 filed in
connection with the FIR lodged before the Paranda Police Station,
Page 9 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
Osmanabad, the Aurangabad Bench of this Court (Siddheshwar S.
Thombre J.) also granted interim protection to the Applicant in an
order dated 19th May 2026, till the next date subject to the conditions
imposed therein.
13. The aforesaid two orders are certainly relevant in the present matter
whilst considering the Applicant’s prayer for pre-arrest protection.
The allegations against the Applicant in the present matter are similar
to those that have been made against him in the other two FIR’s.
After the passing of the said orders, there is no complaint and/or
grievance against the Applicant either to the effect that he is
absconding or that he is not cooperating with the investigation.
Naturally so, since both these conditions are imposed in the
aforementioned two orders passed by the Kolhapur Bench and the
Aurangabad Bench of this Court granting interim protection to the
Applicant failing which, the said protection is liable to be cancelled.
In fact, Mr. Giri also tendered a document which reveals that the
Applicant had attended the Paranda Police Station on 30 th and 31st
May 2026 in connection with the investigation that was carried out
there.
14. In the order dated 12th May 2026, the Additional Sessions Judge
Page 10 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
rejected the Applicant’s prayer for anticipatory bail by holding that
his physical custody was necessary to investigate the modus operandi
in the matter. However, except for a general assertion that custodial
interrogation is necessary for thorough investigation, no specific
material has been pointed out to demonstrate and/or establish any
reason why such custodial interrogation of the Applicant is
indispensable at this stage.
15. It is settled law as held by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v State of Maharashtra1 that whilst considering a prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two
factors, namely, that no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair
and full investigation, and that harassment, humiliation and
unjustified detention of the accused should be prevented.
16. Having regard to the nature of the accusations, the material placed
on record, the fact that the Applicant has also been granted interim
protection in the other two matters and the absence of specific
material showing why custodial interrogation of the Applicant is
indispensable at this stage, I am of the view that custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is not warranted at this stage and
1 (2011) 1 SCC 694
Page 11 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
hence, the Applicant is entitled to interim protection.
17. Considering this, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed
on the following terms:
a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in C.R. No.0037 of 2026
dated 20th January 2026 registered with Daund Police Station,
Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5),
316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant shall be
released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond/S.B. Bond in the sum
of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
b) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of
Daund Police Station on every Thursday between 11.00 a.m.
and 2.00 p.m. commencing from the date of this order.
Thereafter, as and when called upon by the Investigating
Officer, the Applicant shall ensure his presence before the
Investigating Officer.
c) The Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall
produce all documents, invoices, transport records,
equipment, and any other material which may be sought by
the Investigating Officer and which are alleged to be in his
Page 12 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
ABA-1382-2026.doc
Surya vs. State
possession, custody or control.
d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the
evidence nor influence any witnesses or persons concerned
with the case.
e) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission
of the Trial Court.
18. In the event the Applicant violates any of the conditions specified in
this order, the anticipatory bail granted herein shall be liable to be
cancelled. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited to the disposal of the present Application, and the Trial Court
shall proceed in the matter without being influenced by the
observations made hereinabove.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Shubham Gadhavepatil
Page 13 of 13
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
Checking your session…