Bombay High Court
SUJIT SHRIPAD CHIKANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, confirming and making absolute the earlier bail order with its conditions.
Summary
Sujit Shripad Chikane, a salesman for Better Choice, was alleged to have misappropriated Rs.1,75,894 while handling payments from retailers, leading to charges under IPC sections 406 and 420. He filed an anticipatory bail application (No. 3182 of 2023) seeking pre‑arrest bail. The trial court, after hearing both sides, granted interim bail on condition of a bond and cooperation with the investigation. The State later submitted that the applicant had cooperated fully and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary after the charge‑sheet (R.C.C. No.268 of 2026) was filed. In the absence of the applicant’s counsel, the High Court confirmed the earlier bail order, made it absolute, and disposed of the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate relief in an anticipatory bail application where the accused has been charged under sections 406 and 420 IPC and has cooperated with the investigation?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- bail conditions
- cooperation with investigation
Judgment
1/4
32-ABA-3182-2023 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3182 OF 2023
Sujit Shripad Chikane …...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra …...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
None for Applicant.
Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
API, Mr. S. V. Bile, Satara City Police Station, present.
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
by SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
DHUDUM
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
SHANKARSA Date:
DHUDUM 2026.09.22
20:15:41
+0530
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. When this Application was called out, neither the Applicant, nor
the Advocate for the Applicant were present, either physically or through
V.C. mode.
2. This Anticipatory Bail Application is pending since the year
2023. As such, perused the records with the assistance of Dr. Ashvini A.
Takalkar, learned APP, for the Respondent-State.
3. on 8th November, 2023, the following order was passed:
“1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned
APP for the State.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/4
32-ABA-3182-2023 (CR).DOC
2. This application is preferred seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.R. No.754 of 2023 registered at Satara City
police station for the offences punishable under sections 406
and 420 of Indian penal Code, 1860.
3. The applicant was working as a salesman with ‘Better Choice’ a
distribution company situated at Powai Naka, Satara of which
the first informant is a proprietor. Better Choice distributes
Cadbury products. The applicant used to accept orders and
collect the price of goods sold and delivered from the
customers.
4. During the period January, 2023 to June, 2023 while checking
the reconciliation list, it transpired that the applicant had not
credited the amounts which were collected from various
retailers. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that the
applicant had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,75,894/-.
Hence, the report.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the
applicant intended to leave the employment, he has falsely
been roped in. The applicant had duly transferred the amounts
to the account of the company.
6. The learned APP on the other hand, invited attention of the
Court to the statement of the retailers, who had paid the
amount to the applicant. Attention of the Court was also invited
to the statement of the bank account of the applicant which
shows that the amount claimed to have been paid by those
witnesses, had been credited to the applicant’s account.
7. Prima facie there appears material to show that the few of the
entries stated by the witnesses find mention in the statement of
account of the applicant. An endeavour was made by the
learned counsel for the applicant to show that, at times, the
applicant had accepted the amount in his personal account as
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/4
32-ABA-3182-2023 (CR).DOC
the amounts could not be credited to the account of the first
informant.
8. Most of the witnesses have claimed that they had paid the
amount in cash to the applicant. Three of the payments
aggregating Rs.3,711/- were allegedly through banking
channels. The major offence punishable under section 420 of
the Penal Code entails punishment which may extend to seven
years. Having regard to the quantum of the amount which had
allegedly been defrauded and the punishment which the
offence entails, I am inclined to grant interim protection while
directing the applicant to join in the investigation.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1] In the event of arrest in C.R. No.754 of 2023 registered with
Satara City police station, the applicant be released on bail on
furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
2] The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend
Satara City police station as and when directed.
3] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the
prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts
of the case.
Stand over to 20th December, 2023.”
4. Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent – State,
in all fairness, submits that the Applicant has appeared before the
Investigating Officer as and when required and has co-operated with the
investigation. She further submits that, on completion of the investigation,
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/4
32-ABA-3182-2023 (CR).DOC
the charge-sheet has been filed and the same is numbered as R.C.C. No.268
of 2026 and is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Satara.
5. In view of the same, Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for the
Respondent – State, submits that the custodial interrogation of the
Applicant is not required in Crime No.754 of 2023.
6. Notwithstanding, the absence of the Advocate for the Applicant,
in view of the fair stand taken by Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for
the Respondent – State, this Application is allowed by confirming the order
dated 8th November, 2023 and making it absolute in terms of the operative
part of the order bearing Nos.1, 2 and 3.
7. Anticipatory Bail Application No.3182 of 2023 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…