KESHAV KUMAR SHASHI BHUSHAN SINHAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                  905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

Harish

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2168 OF 2024
Keshav Kumar Shashi Bhushan Sinha                     ...Applicant
             V/s.
State Of Maharashtra                                  ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Pranil Pawar, for the Applicant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent – State.
PSI – Mr. Sachin Taware, Colaba Police Station in present.
________________________________________________________
                    CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                    DATE   : 10TH JULY, 2026.


P.C. :-


1.            Heard learned advocate Mr. Pranil Pawar, for the

applicant, as well as advocate Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the

State.


2.            The applicant has filed the instant application under

section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking pre-

arrest bail in Crime No. 189 of 2019 registered with Colaba Police

Station, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian

                                  1/8
                                               905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

Penal Code read with Section 66(c) & (d) of Information

Technology Act, 2000.


3.         Perused the application and the documents filed on

record. The informant has lodged a report with the allegations

that in the year 2019 he had come in contact with one person on

Instagram, and the said person by name Jackson Wayne Conner,

had engaged in chatting with the informant. It is alleged that the

said person has created an impression that he would sell the

paintings of the complainant, however, requested the informant

to transfer some money to save his own employment. It is alleged

that accordingly the informant believed on him and considering

his needs, had transferred several amounts from time to time to

the extent of total of amount of Rs. 18,90,000/- in five accounts.

It is alleged that one of the account is that of the present

applicant to whom an amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- came to be

transferred on 30.10.2019. Thereafter, when the said person

demanded further amounts, the informant got some suspicion

and it was revealed that the informant was cheated. On the basis

of these allegations the FIR came to be registered and this

                               2/8
                                                  905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in the said offence.


4.          Advocate Mr. Pranil Pawar, learned counsel for the

applicant submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the

crime and in fact he himself is cheated by unknown persons who

had hacked his bank account. He submitted that there are no

allegations that this applicant has made any promise or any

assurance to the informant and thus there is no question of any

cheating. However, it has to be noted that there is no dispute

about receipt of an amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- in the account of

the applicant.


5.          Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

considering his submissions about the transactions during the

period of Covid-19 Pandemic, the investigating officer has earlier

made a statement that the applicant shall not be arrested, as

recorded in order dated 28th August, 2024 and in view of this, the

applicant was protected. He further submitted that the interim

protection was continued and the applicant is not arrested. He

invites attention to subsequent order passed by this Court on 9 th

April, 2026 which records that this applicant has expressed

                                 3/8
                                                905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

readiness to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- on the

account of the victim, within three months from the date and on

completion of three months, now, the applicant seeks further

extension of time to deposit the amount. It is interesting to note

that the counsel for applicant has although made a requests for

extension of time to deposit the amount, at the same time, has

submitted that any direction to deposit the amount by way of

condition to grant anticipatory bail is contrary to the position of

law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported at (2023) 7

SCC. He submitted that such kind of condition ought not to have

been imposed and the application for anticipatory bail needs to

be considered without giving importance to such any condition.


6.          Learned APP for the respondent has vehemently

opposed     the    application     and    submitted    that    the

applicant/accused has wrongfully gained the amount by way of

transfer from the complainant. He further submits that the

applicant has received the amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- and despite

clear statement before this Court as recorded in order dated 9th

                                 4/8
                                                 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

April, 2026 has failed to repay the amount and therefore, the

instant application is liable to be rejected on this count alone. He

also submits that this applicant has committed similar offence

which was registered against him with Worli Police Station and

although the said offence came to be compromised, this fact

shows that the applicant is habitual offender.


7.           Advocate Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the

respondent also invited my attention to the observations of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the matter of

Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another

reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 1571 and submitted that the

readiness of the applicant to refund the amount is of no

consequence while considering the application for anticipatory

bail. He submitted that the involvement of this applicant in the

offence of cheating is clear, since the applicant has received the

amount in his account in the year 2019 and did not repay till date

and this conduct clearly shows the acts of cheating by the

applicant.


8.           A perusal of the allegations in the report lodged by

                                5/8
                                                905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

the complainant reveals that on account of certain assurances

given by some other person viz. Jackson Wayne Conner, the

complainant has transferred substantial amounts in several

accounts. It is clear that an amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- is

transferred in the account of this applicant. There is nothing to

show that the account of this applicant was hacked and the

applicant has never lodged any report in that regard. It is pointed

out by the learned APP that there are several transactions in the

account of this applicant which are after the amount of Rs.

7,88,900/- was received by this applicant and he has utilized the

said amount. There is noting to show that this applicant was

entitled to receive the said amount from the informant and on the

contrary, his readiness to refund the amount as recorded by this

Court in its order dated 9th April, 2026 shows that the applicant

had no authority to retain the said amount.


9.          It has to be noted that this applicant has enjoyed the

interim protection on the basis of his assurance that he will

refund the amount by transferring it to the account of the victim.

Despite lapse of considerable time, the applicant has not

                                6/8
                                                 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

deposited/refunded the amount to the victim and is now seeking

extensions on account of his personal reasons about accident of

his father. It has to be noted that the informant stands cheated

and has suffered wrongful loss of an amount of 7,88,900/-. The

entire conduct on the part of the applicant therefore, shows that

he has received the amount from the informant, without any

reason and has secured wrongful gain. The applicant has failed to

deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- in the bank

account of the victim, despite a clear undertaking given to this

Court as recorded in order dated 9th April, 2026 and therefore,

the instant application deserves to be rejected on this count

alone.


10.         Is is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has also recorded it’s observations in Gajanan Dattatray

Gore (referred supra) that the applications for regular or

anticipatory bails be strictly decided on the merits of the case and

the discretion shall not be exercised on the basis of any

undertaking or any statement by the accused person about

readiness and willingness to make the payments. In the wake of

                                7/8
                                                  905-ABA-2168-2024.doc

these observations, the readiness of the applicant to refund the

amount to the informant by seeking any extension of time is of no

consequence. It is surprising to see that the applicant has shown

the audacity to argue, that his own statement about readiness to

refund the amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- to the victim was itself

contrary to the legal position and the same cannot be imposed by

way of condition for grant of anticipatory bail. It has to be noted

that the readiness to refund the amount was expressed by the

applicant himself and he has enjoyed the protection on that basis

and therefore the contentions which are now putforth to oppose

the condition of deposit are not at all acceptable.


11.         In view of the above, considering the material

showing involvement of the applicants / accused in the offence

who has received the amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- and further

considering the overall conduct of the applicant, he does not

deserves to be protected by any discretionary order. Hence, the

instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected.


                                  (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)



                                 8/8