Bombay High Court

SHIRISH MANGALNATH JOSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a case for protecting his liberty.

Summary

The applicant, Shirish Mangalnath Joshi, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered as Crime No. 237 of 2026 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He was alleged to have obtained Rs.10 lakh from the informant by promising a government job, issued a cheque for the same amount which was later dishonoured, and paid only Rs.3 lakh thereafter. The applicant argued that the FIR was filed four years after the alleged transactions, contending that the delay should preclude bail. The State opposed, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the existence of a dishonoured cheque as evidence of involvement. After examining the prima facie material, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient ground to protect his liberty and consequently dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the FIR is lodged after a substantial delay and there is prima facie evidence of the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 318(4)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
delay in FIR
cheque dishonour
Section 318
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
bail denial
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42798




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     18 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1385 OF 2026

                                   SHIRISH MANGALNATH JOSHI
                                              VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                 ...
           Mr. Ujwal Subhash Patil, Advocate for Applicant
           Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                    CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                    DATED     : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 237 of

           2026, registered with Pimpalgaon Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the

           offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.


           2.    As per the First Informant, the Applicant and others obtained an

           amount of Rs.10 lakhs from the Informant on the assurance of providing him

           a government job. So far as the Applicant is concerned, as the appointment

           order was not received, he issued a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs to the Informant.

           The said cheque was dishonoured. The Informant fairly states that, after

           dishonour of the said cheque, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was paid to him and

           the cheque was returned.




           18 ABA 1385.2026.odt                                                   1 of 3
3.    Learned Advocate for the Applicant, on 21.08.2026, had made a

statement regarding deposit of Rs.7 lakhs. Extension of time was sought for

depositing the said amount. However, learned Advocate for the Applicant

submitted that he was not in a position to contact the Applicant to ascertain

whether the Applicant was depositing the said amount. Having regard to the

said fact, learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP were heard on

merits.


4.    Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that there is delay in

lodging the First Information Report, as the amounts allegedly paid towards

the assurance of employment were paid in the year 2022, whereas the First

Information Report was lodged in the year 2026. It is his submission that

merely because the Applicant had issued a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs, it cannot be

presumed that the Applicant had received any amount from the Informant.


5.    Learned APP opposed the application by referring to the allegations

against the Applicant in the First Information Report. It is her contention that,

considering the nature of the offence, as well as the fact that the Applicant

had issued a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs to the Informant, the delay in lodging the

First Information Report stands explained.


6.    Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there are specific



18 ABA 1385.2026.odt                                                       2 of 3
allegations against the Applicant and the co-accused of receiving an amount

of Rs.10 lakhs on different occasions. There is further material on record to

indicate that the Applicant had received some part of the said amount in his

account. Apart from this, the Applicant had issued a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs,

which was dishonoured. All these facts prima facie indicate the involvement

of the Applicant in the crime in question.


7.    Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Applicant

has not made out a case for protecting his liberty. Hence, the application

stands dismissed.


                                                    ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




18 ABA 1385.2026.odt                                                     3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…