Bombay High Court

GAJANAN CHANDRAKANT MADBHAVEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 23 January 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: MADHAV JAMDAR

Holding

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as the applicant is prima facie involved in cheating.

Summary

The applicant, Gajanan Chandrakant Madbhave, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he sold a flat for Rs.38,81,000 despite the flat being mortgaged with an outstanding loan of about Rs.34,17,000. The prosecution alleged that the applicant knowingly misrepresented the flat as being free of encumbrances, received full consideration, and failed to clear the mortgage, constituting cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. The applicant argued that he was aware of the loan and intended to clear it using proceeds from another property, relying on a prior agreement. The court examined the sale deed, which expressly stated the flat was without encumbrance, and found the applicant had full knowledge of the mortgage and did not discharge it. Concluding that the case was prima facie serious and involved cheating, the court held that no grounds existed for granting anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in a case of alleged cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Whether the applicant's knowledge of the mortgage and failure to clear it negates the ground for bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 BNSS
Section 420 IPC
cheating
mortgage
sale deed
pre‑arrest bail
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                                   915 ABA 3389.25.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3389 OF 2025
Gajanan Chandrakant Madbhave                         …Applicant
      Versus
State of Maharashtra                                 …Respondent


Mr. Ratan L. Adhe, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. S.M. Yadav, APP for the State.
Ms. Shubha Shirsat for Respondent No.2.


                       CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :      23rd January 2026
P.C.:


1.       Heard Mr. Adhe, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Ms.

Yadav, learned APP for the State and Ms. Shirsat for the

Respondent N.2.



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

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Applicant is seeking

pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.366 of 2025 registered

with Kondhwa Police Station, Pune City, for the offences

punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(“IPC”).




                               Page 1 of 3
Dusane
                                                    915 ABA 3389.25.DOC




3.       As per the prosecution case, the Applicant sold the subject

flat to the First Informant for consideration of Rs.38,81,000/-,

however, when the said flat was sold, the subject flat was

mortgaged with the Bank as there was total outstanding loan of

about Rs.34,17,000/- on the said flat.



4.       It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Applicant

that the Applicant was knowing about the said loan and to

substantiate said contention, he relied on Visar Pavati dated 1 st

February 2023 and more particularly Clause No.4 of the same. He

further submits that the Applicant will clear the said loan by sale of

some other property.


5.       On the other hand, Ms. Shirsat, learned Counsel for

Respondent No.2 points out Clause No. 12 of registered sale-deed

dated 26th June 2023 wherein it is specifically stated that the

subject flat is without any encumbrance.

6.       Perusal of record shows that the Applicant has accepted

consideration of Rs.38,81,000/-. Perusal of record further shows

that the Applicant with complete knowledge that the flat is

mortgaged and huge amount is outstanding has sold the flat to the




                                Page 2 of 3
Dusane
                                                     915 ABA 3389.25.DOC




Respondent No.2 by representing that there are no encumbrances

on the subject flat. The Applicant received an aggregate amount of

Rs. 38,81,000/- towards sale consideration and in spite of the

same failed to clear the said outstanding loan of Rs.33,17,000/-.

The Applicant could have cleared the loan as the said

consideration amount of Rs.38,81,000/- was admittedly received

by the Applicant. Thus, prima facie the Applicant is involved in the

crime of cheating.

7.       This is a very serious case where prima facie the Applicant is

involved in the crime.

8.       Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made

out for grant of Anticipatory Bail.


9.       The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed



                                              (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)




                                Page 3 of 3
Dusane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…