Bombay High Court
ARUNDHATI JAYADEEP TAMBVEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with conditions, holding that the circumstances warranted bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Summary
The applicant, Arundhati Jayadeep Tambvekar, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a criminal case alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust under IPC Sections 420 and 406. The prosecution alleged that the applicant induced a complainant to pay Rs.10 lakh for a promised railway job, later issuing a cheque that was dishonoured for a false signature. The applicant contended that the alleged conduct occurred between 2018 and 2021, the FIR was lodged in 2022, and there were no prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the prima facie involvement of the applicant, and the four‑year lapse before the bail application, concluding that denying bail would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, including furnishing a bond, reporting to police, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The order disposes of the anticipatory bail application in the applicant’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 for offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences and the delay in filing the bail application justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
5 ABA-2319-2026.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2319 OF 2026
Arundhati Jayadeep Tambvekar …Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
(P.I. Shirur Police Station)
Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar a/w. Harshwardhan Milind Pawar
a/w. Abhishek Arote, for the Applicant.
Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Nimbalkar, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Ms. Tidke, learned APP appearing for the State.
2. By this application filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nyaya
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection C.R. No. 673 of 2022 registered with Shirur Police
Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and
406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No. 5 of the
order dated 11th April 2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Page 1 of 5
8th September, 2026
5 ABA-2319-2026.DOC
skt
Judge, Ghodnadi-Shirur, Pune, in Criminal Bail Application No.
101 of 2026, which reads as under:
“5] It is case of prosecution that, the complainant
filed complaint on 03/10/2022 alleging that the
applicant got acquainted through his relatives. After
that applicant told him that he has acquaintance in
Railway department and anybody wants to have
service shall pay Rs.10,00,000/- to her and she will
not cheat. Therefore, the complainant relied on the
applicant and paid amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the
applicant. The applicant also assured to repay the
amount if job is not provided then she would refund
the amount. After that the complainant made inquiry
with the applicant time to time regarding job of his
son, but applicant gave evasive answers. After
repeated inquiry the applicant gave cheque dated
10/11/2021 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank for
Rs.6,00,000/-. After that also the complainant made
inquiry with the applicant time to time but she gave
evasive answers. Therefore, the complainant realized
that the applicant has cheated him. The applicant
Page 2 of 5
8th September, 2026
5 ABA-2319-2026.DOC
skt
asked the complainant to deposit the cheque.
However, said cheque dishonoured for the reasons of
"false signature". The complainant issued notice to
the applicant through Advocate. However, the
address given by the applicant was false, therefore,
notice returned back. The applicant has not told her
address to the complainant.”
4. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant that the incident has taken place from 2018 to 2021. The
F.I.R. has been lodged on 4th October 2022. The charge-sheet is
filed and in fact trial is about to start. Learned counsel for the
Applicant states that there are no other antecedents.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Tidke, learned APP strongly opposes
the application. She submits that the offence is very serious and
therefore Anticipatory Bail Application be not granted.
6. Perusal of the record shows that the offence is very serious
and the Applicant is prima facie involved in the crime. However,
the incident has taken place from the year 2018 to 2021. The
F.I.R. has been lodged on 4th October 2022. Charge-sheet has also
Page 3 of 5
8th September, 2026
5 ABA-2319-2026.DOC
skt
been filed. The Applicant is the lady. Thus, no useful purpose will
be served by denying the anticipatory bail after a period of four
years in the year 2026.
7. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, a case is made
out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. In view thereof, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant-Arundhati
Jayadeep Tambvekar in connection with C.R. No. 673
of 2022 registered with Shirur Police Station, Pune,
the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each
with one or two solvent sureties each in the like
amount.
(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when called by the Investigating
Officer.
(c) The Applicant shall furnish her cell phone number and
residential address to the Investigating Officer and
shall keep the same updated, in case of any change
Page 4 of 5
8th September, 2026
5 ABA-2319-2026.DOC
skt
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.
8. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 5 of 5
8th September, 2026
Checking your session…