Bombay High Court

VINOD SOMNATH RATHODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 5 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to specified conditions.

Summary

Vinod Somnath Rathod, accused of cheating Rs.4.80 lakh in a land‑sale fraud and charged under Sections 318(4), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution argued the offence was serious and custodial interrogation was required, while the defence highlighted that the applicant had already deposited Rs.4.18 lakh of the alleged amount and was ready to pay the balance, and that a prior bail order had not been misused. The court examined the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, and the lack of any evidence of bail misuse. Finding that the applicant’s cooperation and partial deposit mitigated the risk of tampering, the court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions, including a cash bond, reporting to police, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order was limited to the purpose of considering the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged cheating of Rs.4.80 lakh and serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the applicant’s partial deposit of the alleged amount and willingness to cooperate with investigation justify the grant of bail.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary despite the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
cheating
cash deposit
bail conditions
cooperation with investigation
Maharashtra
criminal procedure

Judgment

33.ABA-2017.26.DOC

Digitally signed
by PRACHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.10.06
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
16:27:31 +0530
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2017 OF 2026

Vinod Somnath Rathod … Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
______________________
Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate (through VC) a/w Mr. Karan M. Chaudhary
for the Applicant.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Chhaya Borkar, API a/w Mr. Umesh Koli, PSI attached to
Chaturshrungi Police Station, present.
______________________

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 5 OCTOBER 2026
P. C. :-

1. Heard Mr. Phatate, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Jadhav, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant, who is Accused

No.1, is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.263 of

2026 registered with Chaturshrungi Police Station, District Pune

Page 1
PPN
33.ABA-2017.26.DOC

for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 351(2), 352

read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

Applicant that an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- has been received in

his account and accordingly, a statement to the effect that the said

amount will be deposited before the Trial Court was made on 3

August 2026 to show the bona fide of the Applicant. He submits

that there is some typographical mistake in the order dated 3

August 2026, as amount of Rs.4,18,000/- has been mentioned

instead of Rs.4,80,000/-. However, he submits that the Applicant

has already deposited Rs.4,18,000/- as stated in the order dated 3

August 2026 and he is ready to deposit balance amount of

Rs.72,000/- before the learned Trial Court.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that offence is

very serious and custodial interrogation is necessary.

5. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph no. 6 of the

order dated 29 June 2026 which reads as under :-

6. On perusal of copy of investigation papers, it appears
that the co-accused Chaitanya Jori had introduced applicant
and his brother Devidas with informant and her husband. It
appears that they had shown plot no.1 situated at Mouje Vizar,

Page 2
PPN
33.ABA-2017.26.DOC

Tahsil Velhe Dist. Pune to informant and her husband. The
informant and her husband had given Rs.4,20,000/- to them,
but that transaction was not fulfilled. Then again these persons
shown land situated in Mouje Kuruji to informant and her
husband and again obtained Rs.4,80,000/- from informant and
her husband. That transaction also not completed. It appears
from the FIR that the land shown to informant was sold by
owner of said land to other. It is not disputed by applicant that
he received Rs.4,80,000/- from informant and her husband.
Though he filed affidavit of one person to show that he paid
Rs.4,80,000/- to him for purchasing land for informant and her
family, but the affidavit does not support the said fact. The
deponent stated that some amount has been paid by applicant.
It is pertinent to mention that there is allegation that the
applicant and his associates show land and obtain money and
then assure the victims that they will adjust that amount in
other transaction. Such conduct on the part of applicant and his
associates prima facie shows that since beginning they do not
have intention to complete transaction. It appears that similar
types of three crimes were previously registered against the
applicant. The investigation is going on. Detail investigation is
required in present crime.

6. Thus as per prosecution case, the Applicant has cheated the

First Informant for an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. Learned counsel

for the Applicant states that the Applicant is not involved in the

crime. However, to show his bona fide, he is ready to deposit

Rs.4,80,000 before the learned Trial Court and accordingly, he has

already deposited Rs.4,18,000/- and the balance amount of

Rs.72,000/- will be deposited within a period of one week from

today.

Page 3
PPN
33.ABA-2017.26.DOC

7. Perusal of the record shows that a learned Single Judge has

already protected the Applicant by order dated 3 August 2026.

There is nothing on record to show that the said liberty has been

misused by the Applicant. Learned counsel appearing for the

Applicant states that the Applicant will cooperate with the

investigation.

8. Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of anticipatory

bail by passing the following order :-

ORDER

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection

with C.R. No.263 of 2026 registered with

Chaturshrungi Police Station, District Pune, the

Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with

one or two solvent sureties each in the like amount.

(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police

Station on 12th and 13th October 2026 and thereafter,

as and when called and shall cooperate with the

Investigation.

Page 4
PPN
33.ABA-2017.26.DOC

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.

9. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose

of considering the anticipatory bail application.

10. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Page 5
PPN

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Prashant P Jadhav