Bombay High Court

MINAKSHI NILESH SINGH AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 31 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that the matter is predominantly civil, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and therefore anticipatory bail was warranted.

Summary

The applicants, Minakshi Nilesh Singh and another, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a FIR alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust (Sections 406, 420, 34 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023) and violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, directors of a construction firm, had received large sums from the complainant and later failed to repay, leading to claims of fraud. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement wherein the applicants agreed to hand over specific flats to the complainant, and a consent term was produced. The court observed that the dispute was essentially civil, that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and therefore found the case suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions, directing the applicants to furnish a personal bond and comply with reporting requirements.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust and offences under the MPID Act.
Whether the nature of the dispute is civil, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary.
Whether the settlement and consent terms affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 34, 406, 420
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal breach of trust
cheating
MPID Act
civil settlement
Section 482
Section 406
Section 420
Section 34
Maharashtra

Judgment

47-ABA-3170-2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3170 OF 2025

Minakshi Nilesh Singh & Anr. …Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

Mr. Niket Harit a/w. Mr. M. Kashif Wahedna i/b. Manoj Harit &
Co., for the Applicants.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Anas K. Shaikh a/w. Ms. Hemal Shah, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Bagade, PSI, attached to Wanwadi Police Station, Pune,
present.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 31st AUGUST 2026
PC:-

1. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants are seeking pre-

arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.292 of 2025 registered with

Wanwadi Police Station, Pune City, Pune, for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 as also Sections 3 and 4 of the

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial

Establishments) Act, 1999.

Page 1
Sonali
47-ABA-3170-2025.DOC

2. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of

the order dated 12th August 2025 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Bail Application No.5034 of

2025, which reads as under:

“2] It is the case of complainant that in 2016 he
invested Rs.1.40 crores and during the period from
03.02.2017 to 14.12.2017 he received Rs.25.50
lakhs from the applicant, thereafter also in the year
2017 applicant No.2 requested complainant to pay
R.60.00 lakhs on the assurance of applicant No.2
that he would return Rs.70.00 lakhs in lieu thereof,
complainant paid Rs.54.00 lakhs and in lieu thereof,
applicant No.2 paid Rs.18.50 lakhs, but the
complainant started demanding Rs.2.5 crores,
therefore, applicant No.2 issued 2 cheques of
Rs.1.25 crores each. Therefore, complainant and his
wife visited applicant's office and during a
compromise meeting, it was decided that applicant
No.2 will give 6 flats to the complainant so also
issued two cheques worth Rs.27.00 lakhs each
towards repayment of alleged payment of Rs.54.00
lakhs in January 2018. Further on 12.02.2020 one
more compromise meeting was held, wherein it was
decided that applicant No.2 would give 7 'flats
instead of 6 already committed earlier.

3] It is contended that applicants are directors of
the company M/s. Shivtara Properties Pvt. Ltd.
engaged in business of construction and
development of properties, applicant No.1 is a
house maker and a non Executive Director and
applicant No.2 looks after day to day working of the
firm. Applicant No.1 is arrayed as accused
intentionally to meet unlawful demands and
pressurize applicant No.2. Informant got knowledge

Page 2
Sonali
47-ABA-3170-2025.DOC

about applicant No.2 due to some events and there
were several monetary transactions between parties
like friends and cash transactions were always
friendly hand-loans, which continued till
extravagant and unjust demands, which were not
met by the applicant No.2. It is further contended
that multiple rounds of preliminary investigation
were done by police by calling applicant and
applicant has co-operated investigation.

4] It is further submitted that complainant has paid
Rs.1.40 crores only in the month of August 2016
but the contention that he paid Rs.1.00cr cash is
completely false, in discharge of loan certain
cheques were issued as security, on 09.10.2023 the
accounts between parties were settled to their
satisfaction and receipt dated 29.08.2016 and
30.08.2016 shows receipt of Rs.40.00 lakhs. Further
applicant No.2 director has repaid Rs.52.99 lakhs
from 29.12.2023 to 29.08.2024. There were
documents such as MOU, power of attornies, which
were merely comfort documents and informant did
not act upon the same. Therefore, there was the
only remedy for the informant to file appropriate
civil suit or invoke Arbitration.

5] It is further submitted that the allegations in FIR
are false, frivolous, concocted made with motive of
coercing, the transactions are of purely commercial
nature, which falls under the category of civil
dispute, ingredients to attract Section 3 and 4 of
MPID are not made out against the applicants. It is
further submitted that as the complainant was
satisfied with the pattern of repayment, he
continued further transactions, which shows that
there was no intention of the applicants to cheat, so
also the money was paid by the complainant to earn
profit, there was no element of entrustment. Further
as the applicant No.1 is housewife, nothing to do
with the transactions and applicant No.2 has co-

Page 3
Sonali
47-ABA-3170-2025.DOC

operated investigation fully, offence is of
documentary nature, nothing remained to recover
and discover, therefore, their custody is not
required. Further applicants are entrepreneur,
firmly grounded in society, therefore, there is no
reason of their absconding, applicant No.2 is the
only bread earner of his family and the applicant
No.1 is the only caretaker of her family. It is further
submitted that applicants are ready to c-operate
further, they are ready to obey the terms and
conditions imposed by the court. Hence, prayed to
allow the application.”

3. Both the learned Counsel state that the Applicants and the

First Informant have arrived at an amicable settlement, by which

the Applicants have agreed to handover the possession of Flat

Nos.101 and 103 in ‘C’ Wing, Flat No.402 in ‘A’ Wing and Flat

No.402 in ‘B’ Wing of the Tara Shristi Project, situated at Keshav

Nagar, Mundhwa, Pune, to the First Informant. Both the learned

Counsel state that in fact, Flat Nos.101 and 103 in ‘C’ Wing have

already been handed over to the First Informant and Flat No.402

in ‘A’ Wing and Flat No.402 in ‘B’ Wing will be handed over as per

the Consent Terms arrived at between them. Both the learned

Counsel further state that Writ Petition No.884 of 2025 is filed

seeking the quashing of the subject FIR and after the flats are

handed over in terms of the Consent Terms, steps will be taken in

Page 4
Sonali
47-ABA-3170-2025.DOC

the said Writ Petition No.884 of 2025 seeking quashing of the FIR

by consent.

4. Both the learned Counsel tendered a photocopy of the said

Consent Terms. The said Consent Terms are taken on record and

marked ‘X’ for identification.

5. Perusal of the record shows that the dispute is

predominantly of civil nature. In any case, perusal of the material

on record shows that the custodial interrogation of the Applicants

is not necessary.

6. Accordingly, the 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 No.1-Minakshi

Nilesh Singh and Applicant No.2-Nilesh Shivji Singh in

connection with C.R. No.292 of 2025 registered with

the Wanwadi Police Station, Pune, the Applicants are

directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R.

Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two

Page 5
Sonali
47-ABA-3170-2025.DOC

solvent sureties each in the like amount.

(b) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police

Station as and when called by the Investigating

Officer.

and residential address to the Investigating Officer

and shall keep the same updated, in case of any

change thereto.

(d) The Applicants 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 Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution

evidence and shall not contact or influence the

Complainant or any witness in any manner.

7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

Digitally [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.08.31
16:40:54
+0530
Page 6
Sonali

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…