Bombay High Court

JAYESH VASANT JAINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 30 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, finding no sufficient ground to deny it.

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 case alleging offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant assisted the main accused, Sonali Laxman Girigosavi (accused No.1), in cheating a pharmaceutical supplier by issuing and dishonouring cheques worth Rs.4,40,35,905/-. The main accused had not been arrested, the State claiming she was bedridden, but the court noted a photograph showing her attendance at a police station, indicating no satisfactory reason for her non‑arrest. The court held that the applicant’s role was secondary and that the prosecution had not justified denial of bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and disposed of the interim application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the prosecution’s justification for not arresting the main accused (bedridden status) is satisfactory.
Whether the applicant’s alleged assistance in the cheque‑bounce fraud warrants pre‑arrest detention.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
cheque bounce
fraud
pre‑arrest bail
criminal procedure
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
business fraud

Judgment

923.ABA-1975.25.DOC

Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.