Bombay High Court
ANKIT BAPU THOMBAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED
Holding
The court held that the FIR appears to be a civil dispute given colour of an offence and therefore allowed anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Ankit Bapu Thombare, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and intimidation under IPC Sections 406, 420 and 506. The FIR stemmed from a commercial dispute over a building‑material transaction where the complainant claimed the applicant received only part of the payment and induced the complainant’s wife to obtain a loan of Rs.20,00,000, which was allegedly not repaid. The applicant contended that the allegations were fabricated, that the transaction was purely civil, and highlighted a four‑year delay in filing the FIR. The court observed that the FIR appeared to be a civil money‑recovery dispute given colour of an offence and noted the applicant’s cooperation with police, including attending the station seven times. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim protection and granted anticipatory bail with conditions of a bond, surety, and cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 of the BNSS in a case where the FIR may be a civil dispute coloured as a criminal offence.
- Whether the four‑year delay in lodging the FIR warrants bail.
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary at this stage.
- Whether the applicant’s cooperation with police affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- BNSS 2023
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- IPC 506
- civil dispute
- delay in FIR
- bail conditions
- cooperation with investigation
Judgment
11-ABA-2667-2026.odt
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2667 OF 2026
Ankit Bapu Thombare ...Applicant
V/S.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
Adv. Raju Suryawanshi a/w Suraj Naik, for the Applicant.
Adv. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the Respondent – State.
PI - Mr. Shashank Kadam, CSMT Railway Police Station, is present.
_________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 07TH OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP for
respondent-state.
2. By this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in
connection with Crime No. 673 of 2026 dated 17.08.2026, registered with
Manpada Police Station, Thane (City), for the offence punishable under
Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
3. The offence is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the
informant alleging that the applicant has purchased the building material
worth Rs. 35,52,794/- from the complainant’s company by name Kadir
Transport and Amrin Transport and out of the said amount has paid only an
1/5
11-ABA-2667-2026.odt
amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant had got a
paralyses attack and therefore his wife started looking after his business and
when she had demanded the balance amount, the applicant falsely informed
her that his amount is struck with the Government Department and he
required some more amount for getting the amount released. It is alleged
that, on that pretext he induced the complainant’s wife to pay an amount of
Rs. 20,00,000/- which she has paid after availing loan from HDFC Bank. It
is alleged that thereafter, the applicant had returned only Rs. 2,10,000/- and
on failure to return the remaining amount towards the goods supplied and
the amount of hand loan, when the applicant was questioned he had
threatened them to kill. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR came to be
registered against the applicant.
4. Advocate Raju Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the entire allegations in the FIR are based on a concocted
story and the informant has not disclosed that the applicant has returned an
amount of Rs. 12,86,000/-, out of the amount of Rs. 17,40,000/-. He thus
submitted that the allegations about inducement to pay an amount of Rs.
20,00,000/-, which is allegedly paid by the wife of the informant by availing
loan from HDFC Bank, are unbelievable and are introduced to somehow
implicate this applicant. He submitted that the transactions in between the
applicant and the complainant are purely commercial in nature which has
been given the colour of an offence.
2/5
11-ABA-2667-2026.odt
5. Learned counsel for the applicant also vehemently submitted that
the alleged transactions had occurred during the period from 01.04.2022 to
31.12.2022 and the offence is registered in August, 2026, without any
justifiable explanation for the inordinate delay. He submits that there is
nothing to show any act of inducement on the part of the applicant and on
the basis of false allegations, the offence is registered against the applicant.
He further submits that after considering the allegations in the FIR and
contentions of the applicant, this Court had granted interim protection in
favour of the applicant by order dated 22nd September, 2026 and
accordingly, the applicant has attended the police station on 7 dates and
extended cooperation. He therefore prays for confirmation of the interim
protection.
6. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent-state has opposed the
application and submitted that the FIR contains detailed allegations with
particulars of the transactions in between the complainant and the applicant.
It is submitted that the applicant has failed to return the huge amount to the
informant and in view of the transactions in between them, the applicant has
made wrongful gain attracting the offence of cheating. He also states that the
investigation in the offence is required to be conducted with respect to all
the transactions and liability of the applicant based thereon. As regards, the
contentions of the applicant about attending the police station in accordance
with interim protection order, there is no dispute.
3/5
11-ABA-2667-2026.odt
7. Perused the FIR and the documents placed on record. It has to be
noted that the allegations in FIR are based on transactions which had
occurred prior to 31st December, 2022 and the FIR is lodged after a period of
about four years. On perusal of allegations in FIR, it appears that there were
certain business transactions in between the complainant and the applicant
against which the applicant has made certain payments. The contentions
about actual amounts paid by the applicant and the amount which is
outstanding needs further investigation. On perusal of the allegations it
however appears that the accusations are based on commercial transactions
in between the parties and it is thus prima-facie seen that the civil dispute
about recovery of money has been given the colour of an offence. As
regards, the allegations in FIR about applicant’s demand of Rs. 20,00,000/-
which is allegedly paid by the wife of the complainant by availing loan from
HDFC Bank, it prima-facie appears unbelievable at this stage, since it is
alleged on the one hand that the complainant’s wife was demanding money
to the applicant and still she has availed loan to give hand loan to applicant.
In view of this, it appears that the FIR is lodged to pressurize the applicant to
settle the civil dispute regarding recovery of money.
8. In view of the above aspects, since the FIR is registered against
the applicant, he needs to be directed to join the investigation and extend
cooperation by disclosing all the financial transactions in between him and
the complainant. The custodial interrogation of this applicant need not be
4/5
11-ABA-2667-2026.odt
insisted at this stage. Further considering the fact that the applicant has
attended the police station on 7 times as stated by the applicant, coupled
with the fact that there is nothing to show that he has misused the liberty, the
interim protection granted by this Court needs to be confirmed, subject to
certain conditions.
9. Hence, I pass the following order :
: ORDER :
(i) The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of this applicant in
Crime No. 673 of 2026 dated 17.08.2026,
registered with Manpada Police Station,
Thane(City), for the offence punishable under
Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), 1860, he be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount.
(iii) The applicant is directed to attend the police
station as and when called upon by the
investigating agency.
(iv) The applicant shall extend cooperation
during investigation and trial.
10. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
5/5
Checking your session…