Bombay High Court
DNYANESHWAR TRINBAK YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant subject to a personal bond, surety and specified financial and reporting conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Dnyaneshwar Trimbak Yadav (Accused No.2) in a case alleging cheating of Rs.52 lakh from seven depositors, with charges under IPC Sections 406, 420 and 34. The applicant contended that the primary culpability lay with his younger brother (Accused No.1) and that he merely served as a director of the company, while his wife offered to deposit Rs.10 lakh immediately and an additional Rs.15 lakh within a year as security. The court noted that bail should not be granted solely on a promise of deposit but observed that the charge‑sheet did not specifically implicate the applicant and that the wife’s undertaking could be treated as the applicant’s. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, surety, and a series of financial, reporting and conduct conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and refrained from commenting on the merits of the underlying criminal allegations.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 406, 420 and 34
- Whether the applicant's alleged role as a director and limited involvement warrants denial of bail
- Whether a financial undertaking by the applicant's spouse suffices as a condition for bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- IPC 34
- financial undertaking
- criminal procedure
Judgment
23.BA.1832.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1832 OF 2026
Dnyaneshwar Trimbak Yadav .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Bhushan Raut, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent.
PSI – Ganesh Sitaram Musle, Dighi Police Station.
Dnyaneshwari Dnyaneshwar Yadav, wife of Applicant.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Raut, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Mr.
Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R.
No.490 of 2025 registered with Dighi Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.2.
3. At the outset, Mr. Raut would seek to amend the name
recorded in the cause title of the Applicant - ‘Dnyaneshwar Trinbak
Yadav’ as ‘Dnyaneshwar Trimbak Yadav’. Necessary amendment is
permitted to be carried out within a period of one week from today.
Reverification stands dispensed with.
1 of 5
23.BA.1832.2026.doc
4. The principal protagonist in the present case is Accused No.1
who is the younger brother of the Applicant. Accused No.3 has already
been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court. Charge against the
Accused persons is for amassing rather seeking investment of total
amount of Rs.52 Lakhs from 7 Depositors. Charge-sheet is filed and in
so far as role attributed to the present Applicant who is Accused No.2
is concerned, Mr. Raut persuades me to consider that in the entire
charge-sheet all allegations with regard to receipt of monies are
attributed to his younger brother who is arraigned as Accused No.1.
5. He would submit that Accused No.2 was running a kirana
shop and was made Director of the Company by his younger brother.
He would submit that the wife of the present Applicant has filed an
Affidavit dated 12.08.2026 which is placed on record wherein she has
submitted that without prejudice to the rights and contentions, she is
ready and willing to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- with the Registrar General
of this Court to show bonafides of Accused No.2 – her husband. The
said Demand Draft is brought in the Court by Mr. Raut. She has
further submitted that she may be put to terms and on taking
instructions Mr. Raut would submit that she has also stated in the
Affidavit that further sum of Rs.15,00,000/- would be deposited by her
and Accused No.2 after his release within a period of one year from
today.
2 of 5
23.BA.1832.2026.doc
6. Though this Court is completely conscious of the fact that
bail should not be granted on the basis of promise to make deposit, the
facts in the present case prima facie persuade me to consider the case
of Applicant. In the entire charge-sheet, Accused No.2 namely
Applicant’s role is not highlighted. The only nexus of Accused No.2
who is principal Accused No.1 is that he had received some funds from
his younger brother and he was shown Director of the Company which
was run by Accused No.1. Accused No.3 was infact instrumental in
seeking the deposits and is already enlarged on bail. The undertaking
given by wife of Applicant is therefore is considered as an undertaking
given by Applicant also. In that view of the matter, considering the
aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Raut and the bonafides to make
payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by Applicant upfront and his wife, I am
inclined to allow the Application.
7. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant has made out case for
grant of bail subject to following conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 409 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount;
3 of 5
23.BA.1832.2026.doc
(iii) Payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft is
directed to be accepted by the Registrar, Appellate Side
and directed to be sent to the Trial Court after the same
is encashed in the present case;
(iv) Applicant is directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- in four
equated installments every quarter (3 months) before
the Trial Court;
(v) After release of Applicant from jail, within a period of
two weeks Applicant is directed to file undertaking for
ensuring that the balance Rs.15,00,000/- will be paid
by him as directed in this order before the concerned
Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(vii) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(viii)Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
4 of 5
23.BA.1832.2026.doc
(ix) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(x) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(xi) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
8. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.24
20:37:54 +0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…