Bombay High Court
SANDIP SUBHASHRAO DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the accused on a bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties, subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Sandip Subhashrao Deshmukh, was charged under IPC sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 for allegedly taking money from customers as an agent of an insurance company, misappropriating it and forging documents. The applicant contended that he had returned the entire amount to the customers, a fact recorded in the supplementary statement of the first informant, and argued that there was no allegation of forgery against him. He had been in custody for more than one year and seven months with no significant progress in the trial. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, risk of absconding, possible tampering with witnesses, and a second case filed against him. The Court, after hearing both sides and noting the return of money and trial delay, granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.30,000 with one or two sureties, imposing conditions to attend police as required and not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the return of the misappropriated amount and the lack of progress in the trial justify granting bail.
- Whether there is a risk of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses that would warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- forgery
- misappropriation
- Indian Penal Code
- trial delay
- surety
Judgment
20-BA-1561-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1561 OF 2025
Sandip Subhashrao Deshmukh ….Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra …..Respondent
________________________________________________________________
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ayush Pasbola, Mr.
Digitally signed
by SONALI
SONALI SATISH
Chinmay Godse and Ms. Janaki Patil for the Applicant.
KILAJE
SATISH Date:
KILAJE 2026.02.04
10:50:23
+0700
Mr. M.G.Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in
C.R.No. 247 of 2024 registered with Manmad City Police Station, Nashik,
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).
2. It is prosecution’s case that the applicant is the agent of Star
Union Daiichi Life Insurance Company Ltd. He took the amount from the
customers for depositing in the company, but did not deposit the said
amount. He misappropriated the amounts by making false and forged
documents.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
Page 1 of 3
20-BA-1561-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
applicant has returned all the amount alleged against him to concerned.
The supplementary statement of the first informant is recorded. In the said
statement, he has stated that the applicant has returned amount to the
customers. There are no allegations of preparing false and forged
documents against the applicant in the supplementary statement. The
applicant is behind bars for more than one year and seven months. There
is no progress in the trial and requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has
misappropriated the amount given by the customers. The applicant has
prepared false and forged documents and cheated the customers. If the
applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution
witnesses. One more crime is registered against the applicant. Hence,
requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet
and documents produced on record. In supplementary statement of the
first informant, he has stated that the applicant has returned amount to the
customers. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and seven
months. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass
following order.
ORDER
i. The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 247 of
Page 2 of 3
20-BA-1561-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
2024 registered with Manmad City Police Station,
Nashik, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- on
furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
as and when required.
iii. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or
attempt to influence or contact the complainant,
witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
6. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of.
7. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…