Bombay High Court
AMOL VILAS CHINTAMANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court held that the applicant’s role was of a lesser degree than that of the co‑accused and, applying the parity principle, granted bail with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Dhamasagar alias Balu Hiralal Samdura, was charged with cheating a complainant of Rs.13.80 lakh by using his bank account to receive the money, which was subsequently withdrawn. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, together with co‑accused Deokate, orchestrated the fraud, while the applicant's counsel argued that his role was limited to providing the account and that Deokate had already been released on bail. The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s instrumental role, prior criminal antecedents, and the unrecovered amount. The Court examined the comparative degree of participation, noting that the prosecution had not shown the applicant as the primary beneficiary and that antecedents alone do not bar bail. Applying the principle of parity with the co‑accused, the Court held that bail could be granted subject to strict conditions, and ordered the applicant released on bail on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with a surety.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with a co‑accused who has been released on bail.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant's role in the alleged cheating offence justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- parity principle
- cheating
- criminal antecedents
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 316
- Section 318
- bank fraud
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40214
1 63BA1463.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
63 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1463 OF 2026
Dhamasagar Alias Balu Hiralal Samdura
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...
Mr. Rahul R. Karpe - Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad - APP for the State
...
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3348 OF 2026
IN BA/1463/2026
...
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026
ORAL ORDER :
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3348 OF 2026 : -
1. This application seeking permission to assist the Public
Prosecutor is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1463 OF 2026: -
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, the learned
APP for the State, and the learned Advocate for the Complainant. With
their assistance, I have also perused the entire charge-sheet placed on
record.
2 63BA1463.2026.odt
3. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, on the date of
the incident i.e. 18.03.2026, the Complainant was deceived into
depositing an amount of Rs. 13,80,000/- into the account of the present
Applicant, on the pretext that the outstanding gold pledge loan against
the present Applicant could be discharged and that, upon the return of
the gold and its subsequent disposal, the loan amount along with certain
interest paid by the Complainant would be retained by him, and the
remaining amount would be returned to the present Applicant. It is the
case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 – Deokate, who was known
to the Complainant, approached him and convinced him to finance the
loan amount for the present Applicant and, in return, earn some profit.
The Complainant accepted the offer and, therefore, agreed to deposit
the entire loan amount into the account of the present Applicant. It is
further alleged that, when the amount was deposited into the account of
the present Applicant, the present Applicant left the spot on the pretext
of obtaining a cheque book, while Accused No. 1 – Deokate left the spot
on the pretext of answering nature’s call. When the servant of the
Complainant realized that both of them had fled from the spot after the
amount was deposited, he immediately telephoned the Complainant and
informed him about the said incident. The Complainant thereafter
visited the branch and informed the Branch Manager about the cheating
allegedly committed against him. He further requested the Branch
Manager to immediately freeze the account so that the amount could
3 63BA1463.2026.odt
not be withdrawn by the accused persons. It is alleged that the Branch
Manager assured the Complainant that the account could be frozen for
24 hours, as such action was within his powers. However, on the
following day, when the Complainant visited the branch, he was
informed that, on 18.03.2026 itself, the present Applicant had
withdrawn the entire amount from another branch and, therefore, no
amount was left in the account. The Complainant was accordingly
informed that the amount would now have to be recovered from the
accused. The Complainant thereafter realized that he had been cheated
by the accused persons and, hence, proceeded to lodge an FIR with the
jurisdictional police. Accordingly, C.R. No. 154/2026 came to be
registered against the present Applicant [Accused No.2], Accused No. 1
– Deokate, and Accused No. 3 – Gaikwad, Branch Manager of ICICI
Bank, Jamkhed, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5),
318(4), and 316(2), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits
that the present application is being pressed, more particularly, on the
ground of parity, as Accused No. 1 – Deokate has been released on
regular bail by the Trial Court. He submits that the role attributed to
Deokate is much higher than the role attributed by the prosecution to
the present Applicant in the entire charge-sheet. Reading the statement
4 63BA1463.2026.odt
of the informant, it is submitted that the specific role attributed to the
present applicant is, firstly, that his name was used to show that there
was an outstanding gold loan in his name, secondly, that his loan
account was provided to the complainant, into which the alleged
amount was to be deposited, thirdly, that the applicant was shown to be
sitting in the branch when the servant of the informant arrived at the
bank along with Deokate to deposit the amount, and fourthly, that after
the amount was deposited, the applicant fled from the branch on the
pretext of bringing the cheque book. Apart from these, there is nothing
on record to show that the present applicant has actually met the
complainant or offered him to repay his loan and earn some interest. He
submits that, the entire part of the offence has been attributed to
Accused No. 1 – Deokate and said Deokate has been released on bail by
the Trial Court.
5. The learned APP, however, opposes the application and
submits that the present applicant was instrumental in the commission
of the offence, as he had provided his own bank account for commission
of the crime. He further submits that the amount deposited in the said
account was immediately withdrawn by the applicant. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the role attributed to the present applicant is at par
with that of Accused No. 1 – Deokate. He further submits that the
applicant has two other antecedents. It is also submitted that the
5 63BA1463.2026.odt
amount involved in the offence has not yet been recovered. On these
grounds, the learned APP prays for dismissal of the present application.
6. The learned Advocate appearing for the complainant
supports the submissions made by the learned APP and prays for
dismissal of the application.
7. No doubt, the applicant’s account was used for depositing
the amount, and the story allegedly narrated to the complainant
revolved around the loan account obtained by the present applicant.
However, the role attributed to Deokate in convincing the complainant
to repay the loan amount and earn some interest has not been attributed
to the present applicant. Secondly, the amount which was to be
deposited in the applicant’s account on 18.03.2026 by the complainant
was handed over to the servant of the complainant, who had
accompanied Deokate to the branch. It was in the presence of Deokate
that the amount was deposited in the said account. The prosecution is
entirely silent as to who had actually withdrawn the amount i.e.
whether it was withdrawn by the present applicant alone or whether
Deokate had also accompanied him. In such circumstances, it cannot be
said that the present applicant was the beneficiary of the amount. Thus,
comparatively, the role attributed to the present applicant is of a lesser
degree than the role attributed to Deokate. Further, the mere existence
6 63BA1463.2026.odt
of criminal antecedents cannot, by itself, deprive this Court of its
discretion to grant bail to the accused. The apprehension that the
applicant may indulge in a similar offence can be taken care of by
imposing stringent conditions. Thus, I am satisfied that the law of parity
can be applied and that the present application can be allowed.
Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I pass
the following order:-
ORDER
[i] The Application is allowed.
[ii] The Applicant be released on bail in connection with FIR
bearing Crime No. 0154 of 2026 registered with Jamkhed
Police Station, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahilyanagar, for the
offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 316(2)
read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like
amount on the following condition.
a] The applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station on first Monday of every month.
b] The Applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
8. The Application stands disposed of.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]
JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/09/2026 18:51:27
Checking your session…