Bombay High Court
KRUNAL GANESHBHAI DEKATEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, granting bail subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for Krunal Ganeshbhai Dekate, who was arrested on 6 August 2025 in connection with offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR, lodged five months after the alleged offences, alleged that the applicant received large sums of money in cash and cheque from the complainant in a failed partnership venture, with a key eyewitness’s statement not recorded by the prosecution. The prosecution also recovered gold ornaments, a car and scooters, while an intervenor claimed similar cash deposits but had not filed a complaint. After noting that the charge‑sheet was filed, the applicant had already spent 14 months in custody, and no further custodial interrogation was required, the court granted bail with stringent conditions, emphasizing that the order was limited to bail and not on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 despite the serious nature of the allegations.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the non‑recording of a key eyewitness’s statement affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483 BNSS
- Section 316(2) BNS
- Section 318(4) BNS
- Section 3(5) BNS
- partnership fraud
- cash payments
- witness non‑recording
- bail conditions
- Maharashtra
Judgment
48.BA.202.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2026
Krunal Ganeshbhai Dekate .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Swarali Joglekar for
Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari, Advocate for Intervenor – Respondent No.2.
API – Mr. Kishor Kolhe, EOW Nashik City present.
......…........…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant;
Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Pujari,
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Intervenor whose name
appears in the complaint / FIR filed by the First Informant
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in
connection with C.R.No.I-221 of 2025 registered with Sarkarwada
Police Station, District Nashik for offences punishable under Sections
316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short ‘BNS’). The First Information Report is filed on 06.08.2025 and
Applicant came to be arrested on 06.08.2025.
1 of 6
48.BA.202.2026.doc
3. Case of the Intervenor is that he is similarly placed just like
First Informant, though Mr. Pujari candidly submitted that he has not
filed any complaint. Insofar as the present FIR is concerned, it is
registered on 06.08.2025 after a delay of 5 months since the period of
offence stated therein is from 01.02.2025 to 31.03.2025.
4. According to the First Informant, there was a subsisting
partnership business between Applicant and the wife of the
Complainant by virtue of a partnership deed dated 27.03.2025 with
regard to business of construction, sale and purchase of land and flats.
The partnership deed is a notarized agreement which forms the
backdrop of the relationship between First Informant and Applicant
before me. The said partnership business did not fructify and went
into losses.
5. Case of the First Informant - Complainant is that he had paid
an amount of Rs.65,39,140/- to Applicant, out of which Rs.15 lakhs
was paid by cheque and Rs.51 lakhs was paid in cash. Insofar as
payment of cash amount is concerned, it is averred and alleged that it
was paid in the presence of an eyewitness called Santosh Bharne, but
intriguingly prosecution has failed to record the statement of the said
witness, despite his name having been mentioned not only in the FIR
but in all subsequent statements which are recorded by the prosecution
of similarly placed two other persons.
2 of 6
48.BA.202.2026.doc
6. Insofar as effect of recovery is concerned, the prosecution
has recovered gold ornaments worth Rs.20 lakhs which are
confiscated, one Kia car which according to prosecution is worth Rs.15
lakhs, one scooter worth Rs.70,000/- and another scooter worth Rs.1
lakh.
7. Mr. Pujari, learned Advocate for the intervenor submitted
that insofar as his client is concerned, he had also similarly deposited
an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- with the Applicant, out of which Rs.65
lakhs was paid by RTGS and the balance in cash. This particular
Intervenor has not filed any complaint. However, his statement has
been recorded in the present proceedings by the prosecution. Once
again, his payment of cash amount is in the presence of the witness
called Santosh Bharne as can be seen from his statement, but the
prosecution has not recorded the statement of the said witness for
reasons best known to the prosecution.
8. Considering the present FIR before the Court and the
recovery effected qua Applicant and most importantly charge-sheet
having been filed and no further investigation required to be done and
Applicant having spent 14 months in custody, I am of the opinion that
further custodial interrogation or custodial remand is not required in
the present case. Applicant will otherwise cooperate with the
Investigation Officer as and when called for any further investigation.
3 of 6
48.BA.202.2026.doc
Further with regard to Mr. Pujari's client, he is free to take steps as
available to him in accordance with law.
9. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Krunal Ganeshbhai Dekate is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No.I – 221 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 or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Sarkarwada Police Station, once every month, on the
first Sunday 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;
(iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,
unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall
4 of 6
48.BA.202.2026.doc
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current residential address and mobile telephone
number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating
Officer of any change in his residential address or
mobile telephone number, as and when such change
occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
10. 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.
5 of 6
48.BA.202.2026.doc
11. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
12. In view of above order, pending Interim Application, if any,
is disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.29
19:41:17 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.