SANDEEP ARORA @ KARAN ARORAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                  910-aba-3564-2025.doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

       ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3564 OF 2025

Sandeep Arora @ Karan Arora                          …Applicant

        V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                    ...Respondents

                                 WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 71 OF 2026

Mr. Shantanu Derhgawen i/b Mr. Abhishek Yende, & Adv. Ankit
Trivedi, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent/State.
Adv. Parvez Memon, Adv. Valentina Sampson i/b MZM Legal,
Advocate for the Intervener/Respondent No.2.


                                   CORAM         :   N.R. BORKAR, J.
                                   DATE          :   23.01.2026.

P.C. :

1.                This is an application for Anticipatory Bail.



2.                The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.

767 of 2025 registered at Vartak Nagar Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Sections 467, 409, 120-B, 420 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.



3.                It is the case of the prosecution that, in August 2017,
Pramod S.Lakare
                                           1/5
                                                                       910-aba-3564-2025.doc


the     applicant,       who     is   Managing        Director   of    High       Ground

Enterprises            Limited        (HGEL)           approached           the      first

informant/company,             Tata     Capital      Financial   Services         Limited

(TCFSL), seeking lease finance for audio visual and IT equipments

such as (Lenovo desktop, HP workstation, Alexa camera kits,

servers, Nimbus storage, etc. On the basis of the documents

submitted         by    the    HGEL,     TCFSL       sanctioned       and    disbursed

Rs.3,25,56,200/-          to     STANCE    Synergies       Private     Limited       and

Rs.1,74,31,547/- to Hero Wiretex Private Limited from its HDFC

Bank account. It is alleged that after the Master Lease Agreement

dated 08.11.2017, HGEL allegedly claimed purchase of the

following items under the 2017 sanction: 35HP Z840 workstations,

110 Lenove V310 Notebooks, 39 Lenovo S510 desktops, and 1

Alexa ST Camera with lenses. It is further the case of the

prosecution that in the year 2018, the Directors of HGEL again

approached the TCFSL (now TCL) for additional lease finance.

Accordingly, they submitted documents such as loan applications,

sanction letters and the proforma invoices issued by STANCE

Synergies Private Limited. On the basis of the said documents, on

04.10.2018, TCFSL disbursed an amount of Rs.6,00,00,000/-

through three cheques issued in favour of STANCE Synergies
Pramod S.Lakare
                                               2/5
                                                             910-aba-3564-2025.doc


Private Limited, towards payment of the invoices raised for the

2018 equipment list. It is alleged that HGEL paid instalments only

up to August 2019, amounting to Rs.61,16,219/- and ceased

payment thereafter. It is further alleged that the TCFSL had

claimed GST input credit on the basis of the alleged invoices

issued by STANCE Synergies Private Limited and Hero Wiretex

Private Limited. However, in the month of May 2019, the GST

Department issued a notice stating therein that both supply

companies had not deposited GST capital despite issuing tax

invoices. As a result, TCFSL was compelled to pay Rs.1,06,55,275/-

(including interest and penalty) in June 2019 towards the GST

liability arising from these transactions. It is the case of the

prosecution that, in order to conduct the asset verification, the

complainant’s company officers visited the address provided by

HGEL. However, no leased equipment could be found at the site

and it was found that the present applicant, in connivance with

the other co-accused, prepared bogus invoices, without actual

supply            of   goods   and    thereby    defrauded       the       first

informant/company to the tune of Rs.12,06,42,715.



4.                I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the
Pramod S.Lakare
                                         3/5
                                                                 910-aba-3564-2025.doc


learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for

the first informant/company.



5.                The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it

was not permissible for the first informant/company to classify the

loan account as fraud without hearing the applicant. In support of

the submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied

upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank

of India and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors in Civil Appeal

No. 7300 of 2022 decided on 27.03.2023. The learned counsel

for    the        applicant   further   submits   that   total    amount          of

Rs.6,42,30,472/- was paid to the first informant/company towards

repayment of loan in question and thus it cannot be said that from

the very inception the intent of the applicant and other co-

accused was to cheat the first informant/company. It is submitted

that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is

ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation.


6.                On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-

State submits that bogus invoices, without actual supply of goods,

were submitted as proof that they had purchased the material

Pramod S.Lakare
                                          4/5
                                                             910-aba-3564-2025.doc


from STANCE Synergies Private Limited and Hero Wiretex Private

Limited. It is submitted that the said companies transferred Rs.

9,00,00,000/- into the personal bank account of the present

applicant. It is further submitted that nine other offences of similar

nature are registered against the present applicant. Learned APP

submits that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is

necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy.



7.                I have perused the papers of investigation. It appears

that false and bogus invoices were submitted for getting the

amount sanctioned, without actual supply of the goods. It appears

that applicant is involved in few more crimes of similar nature.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined

to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The application is

rejected.



8.                Interim Application for intervention stands disposed of.



                                                 [N.R.BORKAR, J.]




Pramod S.Lakare
                                          5/5