Bombay High Court
PRITAM DHANRAJJI SAMDADIYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the applicant has a prima facie case, has cooperated with the investigation, and there is no evidence of misuse of the interim protection.
Summary
The applicant, Pritam Dhanrajji Samdadiya, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with FIR No.185 of 2024 alleging offences under IPC Sections 406, 419 and 420. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, an Area Manager of Jeevansh Fincom Private Limited, induced a complainant to transfer Rs.1,26,260 and Rs.5,500 to the finance company, after which the promised loan of Rs.35 lakhs was not disbursed. The learned Single Judge had earlier granted interim protection on 21 October 2024, noting that the amounts were transferred to the finance company's account and not directly to the applicant, and that the applicant was cooperating with the investigation. The High Court examined whether the interim protection had been misused and found no indication of such misuse. Relying on the prima facie case in favour of the applicant and the existing interim protection, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and disposed of the matter.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the applicant in light of the allegations under IPC Sections 406, 419 and 420?
- Whether the interim protection already granted has been misused by the applicant?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 406, 419, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- finance company
- interim protection
- IPC Sections 406, 419, 420
Judgment
901-ABA-2821-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2024
Pritam Dhanrajji Samdadiya …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
None for the Applicant.
Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Jagdish G. Borse, API, Kalwan Police Station, Nashik Rural,
Nashik, present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. None appears for the Applicant.
2. Heard Ms. Mulekar, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State. With the assistance of Ms. Mulekar, learned APP,
I have perused the papers.
3. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection
with C.R. No.185 of 2024 registered with Kalwan Police Station,
Page 1
Sonali
901-ABA-2821-2024.DOC
Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. A learned Single Judge by order dated 21 st October 2024 has
granted interim protection which continues till date.
5. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.3 of the said
order dated 21st October 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge,
which reads as under:
“3. The informant in the present case has raised a
grievance that upon an impression given by the
applicant, who was working with a finance
company called Jeevansh Fincom Private Limited,
she parted with amount of Rs.1,26,260/- for
obtaining loan of Rs.35 lakhs from the said finance
company. According to the informant, having
transferred the said amount along with a further
amount of Rs.5,500/- in favour of the finance
company, the loan was never disbursed and she also
lost the aforesaid amounts deposited with the
finance company.”
6. The reasoning given by a learned Single Judge while
granting interim protection is to be found in paragraph Nos.6 and
7 of the said order dated 21st October 2024, which reads as under:
Page 2
Sonali
901-ABA-2821-2024.DOC
6. This Court is of the opinion that the statement of
the informant, as well as the statements of two
other similarly situated persons, show that the
amounts in question were all transferred into the
bank account of the finance company. It is not even
alleged that the amounts were transferred in the
account of the applicant or that they were handed
over to the applicant for being given to the finance
company. In that sense, prima facie only the finance
company appears to be the beneficiary of the said
amounts. The documents on record show that the
applicant was indeed appointed as Area Manager
and hence, an employee of the finance company, on
1st August 2023. The documents on record also
show that even the applicant had transferred about
Rs.50,000/- to the finance company, in order to
obtain loan and even he was not given the loan by
the finance company. In such a situation, it is a little
surprising that till date, the Investigating Authority
has not thought it fit to arraign the persons
concerned and responsible for the said finance
company as accused persons, although this Court is
informed that notices have been issued to them.
7. Be that as it may, the applicant has made out a
prima facie case in his favour for granting him
interim relief, as the documents on record show that
he was working as an employee (Area Manager) of
the finance company and the amounts were
transferred in the bank account of the finance
company. He is ready to cooperate with the
investigation.”
7. Perusal of the record shows that the Applicant is having
interim protection since 21st October 2024 and there is nothing on
record to indicate that the said protection has been misused.
Page 3
Sonali
901-ABA-2821-2024.DOC
8. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and
disposed of in terms of the order dated 21st October 2024.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.02.18
10:11:03
+0530
Page 4
Sonali
Checking your session…