Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SANDEEP SITARAM AMBREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
ANTICIPATORY BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Summary

The applicant, Sandeep Sitaram Ambre, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in a cheating case (Crime No. 217 of 2026) registered under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR, based on a complaint by a senior HR director of Vertiv Multi National Company, alleges that the applicant diverted salary payments amounting to Rs 7.91 crore into his personal accounts, returned only Rs 2.13 crore, and issued cheques that were subsequently dishonoured. The applicant contended that the matter was a civil dispute, the alleged confession was not voluntary, and he was willing to refund the remaining amount, seeking bail. The State opposed, highlighting the deliberate deception, the large unrecovered sum of Rs 5.78 crore, the dishonoured cheques, and the applicant's alleged absconding. The Court examined the FIR and found prima facie evidence of cheating, noting the applicant's lack of cooperation and the seriousness of the offences. Consequently, the Court held that custodial interrogation was warranted and that the applicant had not established a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application was therefore rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in view of the alleged cheating offences under the BNS, 2023.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • cheating
  • misappropriation of funds
  • civil dispute
  • confession
  • absconding
  • custodial interrogation
  • Section 482
  • BNSS 2023
  • BNS 2023

Judgment

                                                                     910-ABA-2360-2026



Harish



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2360 OF 2026

Sandeep Sitaram Ambre                                          ...Applicant

         V/s.

The State Of Maharashtra                                       ...Respondent



         Mr. Prashant Suryawanshi i/b Gajanan Savagave, for the Applicant.
         Ms. Poonam Bhosale, APP for the Respondent – State.


                             CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                             DATE      : 21ST AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :-

1.       Heard Advocate Prashant Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the

applicant and Advocate Poonam Bhosale, learned APP for the

Respondent-State.


2.       The applicant has filed the instant application under Section 482

of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apprehending

arrest in Crime No. 217 of 2026, dated 01.07.2026, registered with Wagle

Estate Police Station, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections

                                       -1-
                                                                     910-ABA-2360-2026


316(4), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

(BNS), 2023.


3.     The FIR came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by

Ms. Jennin Fernandes, who is working as a Senior Director (HR) of a

Company by name Vertiv Multi National Company, located at Thane.

She has alleged in the report that this applicant was working as Senior

Manager in the Company since 2017. In the month of November, 2025,

the Senior Manager (Treasury and Banking) had informed the H.R.

department that an amount of Rs. 6,83,08,313/- has been transferred to

the account of this applicant which was maintained with Standard

Chartered Bank during the period from 2021 to 2025 and further an

amount of Rs. 1,08,62,362/- has been transferred to his another account.

On inquiry in this regard, it was noticed that the amount towards full and

final payment of the staff of the company who has left the company, was

repeatedly diverted from the company's bank account to the individual

accounts of the accused/this applicant. It is alleged that on questioning to

the applicant in this regard, he had confessed that he had diverted the

amount to his own account and expressed readiness to refund the amount.

On the basis of his readiness he had returned an amount of Rs.

                                     -2-
                                                                     910-ABA-2360-2026


2,13,00,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 7,91,70,675/-, but failed to return

an amount of Rs. 5,78,70,675/- and thus it is alleged that the applicant

has committed the offence of cheating along with other offences.


4.     Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations in

the FIR are in the nature of civil dispute and even a separate suit bearing

no. 5690 of 2026 is pending before this Court. He also submitted that the

alleged confession is not voluntary and cannot be made the basis for

initiating prosecution against him. He also submitted that the applicant

has showed his bonafides by returning an amount of Rs. 2,13,00,000/-

and is ready to return the remaining amount. He, therefore, prayed for

grant of anticipatory bail.


5.     As against this, learned APP for the respondent opposed the

application and pointed out that there are specific allegations about the

acts of cheating by this applicant. She also submitted that this applicant

carried the intention to deceive since beginning and has dishonestly

transferred huge amounts to his personal accounts. She also submitted

that the cheques issued by the applicant for refund of the amount also got




                                     -3-
                                                                      910-ABA-2360-2026


dishonored and further that the applicant is absconding. Hence, she

submitted that the custodial interrogation of this applicant is necessary.


6.     Perused the FIR and the documents placed on record. The report is

lodged by a Senior Official of the company making specific allegations

against this applicant showing his deceitful acts. There are specific

allegations against this applicant that he has diverted the amount of full

and final salaries of the retired employee in his account, on the basis of

fabricated vouchers. The amount misappropriated by this applicant is

huge and although he has stated that he has returned an amount of Rs.

2,13,00,000/-, it is undisputed that he has failed to return the remaining

amount of Rs. 5,78,70,675. Apart from this, the cheques issued by this

applicant to return the amount have also been dishonored and it is thus

prima facie evident that the applicant has cheated the company. The

entire conduct on the part of the applicant appears to be a calculated plan

to commit cheating and cause wrongful gain to himself.


7.     It has also to be noted that the applicant has himself returned an

amount of Rs. 2,13,00,000/- and as such, at this stage his contention that

the confession was not voluntary cannot be accepted. Further, since the



                                     -4-
                                                                     910-ABA-2360-2026


learned APP has also pointed out that the applicant is absconding, it has

to be noted that the applicant has not extended any co-operation to the

investigating agency.


8.     Considering the nature of offence against the applicant and his

entire conduct in engaging in deceitful means, the custodial interrogation

of this applicant is warranted. Hence, considering the entirety of factors,

I am of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case for

grant of anticipatory bail.


9.     Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.



                                      (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)




                                    -5-


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.