Bombay High Court

AKSHAY DINESH SURAVKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 24 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that bail may be granted despite the seriousness of the alleged fraud, subject to stringent conditions including surety, deposit of the notional loss, and compliance with reporting and non‑tampering directives.

Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed a group of three bail applications filed by employees of F6 Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd., who were accused of creating a parallel company, EXPNP Experty, and diverting 82 clients, causing a notional loss of Rs.16,40,003. The prosecution argued that the offences were fraudulent, involved unlicensed money‑lending, and that the principal accused had a history of related wrongdoing. The court noted that the alleged conduct violated Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money‑Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and that the new company operated without a licence. After considering the submissions and the fact that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the court granted bail to all three accused, imposing conditions including surety bonds, monthly reporting, a requirement for the principal accused to deposit the loss amount, and restrictions on leaving the state. The order also disposed of pending interim applications related to the bail petitions.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to accused persons charged with fraud and operating an unlicensed money‑lending entity under the Maharashtra Money‑Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
Whether the notional loss of Rs.16,40,003 justifies denial of bail.
Whether the court may impose conditions such as deposit of the loss amount, surety bonds, and reporting requirements as part of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

bail
money lending
Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act
fraud
non‑banking financial company
surety
notional loss
unlicensed operation

Judgment

33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4490 OF 2025

Chetan Ravindra Sawant .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2026

Akshay Dinesh Suravkar .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 501 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2026

Dipak Shivram Mangaonkar Applicant –
Intervener
.. (Orig. Complainant)
IN THE MATTER OF
Akshay Dinesh Suravkar Applicant
.. (Orig. Accused)
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2026

Akshay Dinesh Suravkar .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1026 OF 2026

Vinod Mahadev Mhatre .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

1 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

....................
 Mr. Vinod Kashid a/w. Mr. Sumit Bhoite, Advocates for Applicant in
Bail Application No.4490 of 2025 and Bail Application No.1026 of
2026.
 Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ankush Kulge, Mr.
Amol Ghadge, A. Patel and Mr. Aniket Gharat, Advocates for
Applicant in Bail Application No.149 of 2026.
 Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w. Ms. Abhilasha Pawar, Advocates i/by Mr.
Sumit Patil for Intervenor.
 Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kashid, learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail

Application No.4490 of 2025 and Bail Application No.1026 of 2026;

Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application

No.149 of 2026; Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for Intervener and Ms.

Phad, APP for Respondent – State.

2. This is a group of three Bail Applications which are being

disposed by this common order as the three accused persons have filed

separate Bail Applications. Accused No.1 is represented by Mr. Ponda;

Accused Nos.2 and 4 are represented by Mr. Kashid and Accused No.3,

who is a lady is stated to be absconding, according to the prosecution.

3. The accused persons were all working with a Company

called F6 Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd., which is run by the first

informant-complainant, Deepak Mangaonkar, represented by Mr.

Nikam. The said Company is a Non-Banking Financial Company

2 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

(NBFC) engaged in lending money and possesses the requisite money-

lending licence as well as the licence/registration issued by the Reserve

Bank of India (RBI) under the applicable provisions of the Maharashtra

Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and the Banking Regulation

Act, 1949.

4. The accused persons were all employed with F6 Capital &

Finance Pvt. Ltd. in various capacities. During the course of their

employment, the prosecution has alleged that they created and

operated a parallel Company by the name of EXPNP Experty and

diverted 82 clients of F6 Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd. to the said new

Company which thereafter lent money to them, thereby causing a

notional loss of Rs.16,40,003/- to F6 Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

5. The role attributed to Accused No.1 is such that he is alleged

to have been the principal protagonist and the mastermind in

commission of the new Company and diverting the client accounts

whereas Accused Nos.2 and 4 are alleged to have acted under his

instructions.

6. According to prosecution, Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed

which is appended at page No.1241 of Bail Application No.4490 of

2025. Learned Prosecutor Ms. Phad has vehemently submitted that,

considering the gravity of the offence, all accused persons have dealt

with a humongous amount and have caused notional loss to F6 Capital

3 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

& Finance Pvt. Ltd. and this act is fraudulent in nature and ought not

to be viewed lightly. She would further submit that the father and

brother of Accused No.1 have also been implicated in a somewhat

similar offence, namely carrying on money-lending activities without a

licence in relation to F6 Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and therefore

Accused No.1 does not deserve any leniency whatsoever.

7. Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant

has drawn my attention to the detailed allegations attributed to the

accused persons and in particular to page No.149 of Bail Application

No.149 of 2026 which contains the statement of one witness Mr.

Thatte, a Software Developer which has been recorded by the

prosecution. He would submit that the scale of the alleged crime

committed by the accused persons is such that while they were in the

employment of F6 Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd., they created a sub-

domain account and diverted the Company's customers to the said sub-

domain account of Company EXPNP Experty, thereby causing

substantial loss to the Company by diverting monies of more than 82

clients. The loss, according to him would amount to a potential

notional loss running into crores of rupees otherwise had the said

clients continued to be serviced by F6 Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd. He

would submit that the modus operandi of the accused persons

demonstrates a well-planned and deliberate course of conduct,

actuated by mens rea while they were in the employment of F6 Capital

4 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

& Finance Pvt. Ltd. and therefore they do not deserve any leniency. He

would therefore urge the Court to dismiss the Bail Applications.

8. I have heard the submissions made by Mr. Kashid; Mr.

Ponda; Mr. Nikam and Ms. Phad and considered the record of the case

placed before me.

9. A supplementary charge-sheet has already been filed and

investigation has been completed. It is seen that the principal

allegation against the accused persons is that they operated a new

Company EXPNP while they were in service with their previous

Company and diverted some clients of the previous Company.

However most importantly the new Company did not have a money-

lending licence to carry on its operations, which is admitted by the

learned Advocates for the Applicants.

10. Mr. Ponda, in the course of his submissions, has drawn my

attention to Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending

(Regulation) Act, 2014 which prior to its amendment in 2026,

prescribed punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend

to five years and or fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-, or both, for

such an offence. It is seen that the period during which the alleged

offence is alleged to have been committed is from 19.12.2023 to

16.05.2024 i.e. over a period of approximately six months.

5 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

11. The charge-sheet states causing a notional loss of

Rs.16,40,003/-. Though this Court is conscious of the fact that an order

granting bail cannot be ordinarily be made subject to a condition of

deposit, here is a case before me where even according to the

prosecution's own case, a notional loss of Rs.16,40,003/- has been

caused to the complainant Company. Insofar as the charge alleging

that the new Company was operating without a licence is concerned,

that undoubtedly is a matter for the prosecution to establish in

accordance with law at the stage of trial.

12. The role of Accused No.1 is not the same as that of Accused

Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Kashid, in his usual fair mindedness informed the

Court that Accused Nos.2 and 4 worked under the instructions of

Accused No.1 and followed his instructions.

13. The 3 accused persons are already in custody since

17.04.2025 and 29.04.2025. Considering that their further custodial

interrogation is not required in the aforesaid facts which are prima

facie seen by the Court, they have made out a case for grant of bail.

All three accused persons are directed to be released on bail subject to

Accused No.1 making a statement across the bar through Mr. Ponda on

instructions from his Advocate on record that he shall deposit the

amount of Rs.16,40,003/- before the Trial Court within four weeks

from the date of his release. Such undertaking shall be filed by the

6 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

Accused No.1 before Trial Court within one week from his release from

prison.

14. Considering the aforesaid conditions, all three accused

persons are directed to be released on bail on the following

conditions:-

(i) Applicant – Accused No.1 - Akshay Dinesh Suravkar in

Bail Application No.149 of 2026 is directed to be

immediately released from prison in connection with

CR. No.316 of 2026;

(ii) Applicant in Bail Application No.149 of 2026 is directed

to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of

Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety

of the like amount;

(iii) Applicant – Accused No.2 - Chetan Ravindra Sawant in

Bail Application Nos.4490 of 2025 and Applicant –

Accused No.4 - Vinod Mahadeo Mhatre in Bail

Application No.1026 of 2026 are directed to be

immediately released from prison in connection with

CR. No.316 of 2026;

(iv) Applicants in Bail Application Nos.4490 of 2025 and

Bail Application No.1026 of 2026 are directed to be

7 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/-

(Rs. Thirty Thousand only) each with one surety of the

like amount;

(v) Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Khandeshwar Police Station, once every month, on the

first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall

attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;

(vi) Applicants shall co-operate with the conduct of the trial

and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,

unless specifically exempted. Applicants shall not seek

unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall

entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;

(vii) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(viii)Applicants shall not influence with any of the witnesses

or tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(ix) Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

of their current residential address and mobile

telephone number and shall forthwith inform the

Investigating Officer of any change in their residential

8 of 9
33.BA.4490.2025 with Group.doc

address or mobile telephone number, as and when such

change occurs; and

(x) Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid

conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to

the Applicants.

15. Though the learned Prosecutor, Ms. Phad, would submit that

the Applicants are likely to indulge in and re-offend in similar offences,

it is made very clear that their release on bail is subject to the

conditions stipulated herein and any breach or infraction of such

conditions would undoubtedly entitle the prosecution to seek

cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

16. All three Bail Applications are allowed and disposed in the

above terms.

17. In view of the disposal of the three Bail Applications,

pending Interim Application Nos.501 of 2026 and 1907 of 2026 also

stand disposed accordingly. Accordingly if any pending Interim

Applications in Bail Applications are also disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.08.24
20:01:10 +0530

9 of 9

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…