Bombay High Court

JAY PRAKASH SODANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 11 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the existence of a strong prima facie case of a serious economic offence and the risk of evidence tampering warranted the denial of bail.

Summary

The applicant, a former accounts employee of Zenith Steel Pipes & Industries Ltd., was charged under Sections 318(4), 316(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly siphoning Rs.8.69 crore from the company's bank account between February 2023 and September 2025 and crediting the proceeds to his wife and a friend. The applicant sought bail, arguing that he had cooperated with the investigation, paid Rs.18 lakh towards the loss, had no criminal antecedents, and that continued detention would cause hardship to his family. The State contended that the offence was serious, the money remained unrecovered, and there was a risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence or aid co‑accused in disposing of the funds. The court examined the prima facie evidence of the large fraud, the applicant's alleged unwillingness to repay the remaining amount, and the potential for obstruction of justice. Concluding that a strong prima facie case existed and the offence was grave, the court denied bail, emphasizing the need for the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case of alleged large‑scale bank fraud under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the seriousness of the offence and the risk of tampering with evidence justify denial of bail.
Whether the applicant's cooperation, lack of prior convictions, and family hardship are sufficient grounds for bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(4), 318(4), 3(5)

Subjects

bank fraud
bail
economic offence
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
money laundering
corporate theft
prima facie case
risk of tampering

Judgment

P.H. JAYANI                                             910 BA2046.2026.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2046 OF 2026

Jay Prakash Sodani                                       …. Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                …Respondent


Mr. Ganesh Vaidya for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Dinesh Dubey a/w. Mr. Pranay Chaugule for the Intervenor.
Mr. Atul Thorat, PSI, Samta Nagar Police Station, Mumbai,
present.


                            CORAM:       SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :      11th AUGUST, 2026

P.C. :-

1.        Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2.        Present Application seeking release of the Applicant on bail
in C.R.No.1065/2025 registered with Samta Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(4)
and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’), 2023 on the Report
dated 01.12.2025 filed by Mr. Bipin Varkhavat.

3.        In brief, the allegations against the Applicant are that,
before 01.02.2023, the Applicant used to work with M/s. Zenith
Steel Pipes & Industries Limited. He was attached to Accounts
Department. He had access to the information useful in online
banking transactions in the name of the Company and passwords.
In May, 2022 the Applicant resigned and left the Company. It is
alleged that between 01.02.2023 to 30.09.2025, the Applicant
accessed the bank account of the Company using the account


                                Page 1 of 4
P.H. JAYANI                                            910 BA2046.2026.DOC



details like ID, password and by generating OTP, he siphoned total
Rs.8,69,93,046/- from the bank account of the Company and
credited that money in the bank accounts of his wife and friend,
who are accused nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came
to be registered and the Applicant was arrested on 23.01.2026. On
completion of investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet.
The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court both have rejected the
Applicant’s prayer for bail. Hence this Application.

4.       Mr. Vaidya, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
that before lodging of the Report, the representatives of the
Company forcefully got certain immovable properties of the
Applicant transferred in the name of the Company towards the
wrongful loss allegedly caused by the Applicant by siphoning the
money. Mr. Vaidya states that said properties are mentioned in
the Report and, as on the date of transfer of the said properties in
the name of the Company, its market value was about
Rs.5,10,00,000/-. Besides the said properties, the Applicant has
paid about Rs.18 Lakhs to the Company towards the alleged fraud
amount. The Applicant had voluntarily co-operated during the
investigation. Now, the investigation is over. Further detention of
the Applicant in jail will not serve any purpose. The Applicant has
no criminal antecedents. He is not likely to abscond and tamper
with the evidence. The children of the Applicant are studying and,
they are facing great hardship due to the incarcertion of the
Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant may be released on bail.

5.       In reply, Mr. Khan, learned APP and Mr. Dubey, learned
Counsel for the Company submitted that by misusing the bank
account details of the Company, the Applicant has siphoned huge
amount        and   further,   he   alongwith   co-accused   persons,


                                Page 2 of 4
P.H. JAYANI                                              910 BA2046.2026.DOC



misappropriated the same. The transfer of the properties of the
Applicant in the name of the Company was not forceful but with
consent of the Applicant as he had admitted his crime. However,
at the time of transfer, the said properties were not worth more
than Rs.1.32 Crores. Thus, including the payment of Rs.18 Lakhs,
the Company has received only Rs. 1.50 Crores. Still Rs.7.19 Crores
are recoverable from the Applicant. The Applicant is not willing to
pay that amount. Therefore, the Application may be rejected.

6.       I have considered these submissions in the light of the
material on record. The evidence collected during the course of
investigation clearly show that during the period from 01.02.2023
to 30.09.2025, the Applicant has siphoned Rs.8,69,93,046/-. No
doubt, as mentioned in the Report, certain immovable properties
of the Applicant have been transferred in the name of the
Company towards the wrongfull loss. However, there is a great
controversy about the market value of the said properties at the
time of transfer.

7.       Be that as it may. It is a fact that the Applicant has siphoned
huge amount of money from the bank accounts of the Company.
Applicant has committed this offence in a very skillful manner.
Therefore, till date the said money could not be traced. The money
has been siphoned within a span of 19 months. However, the
Applicant has not informed as to where he has kept or invested
that money. Meaning thereby, till date, the money is with the
Applicant or the absconding A2 and A3. This conduct indicates
that the Applicant and the co-accused do not want to part with the
ill-gotten money at any cost. Therefore, if the Applicant is released
on bail, then, it is very likely that all the accused would come



                                Page 3 of 4
                      P.H. JAYANI                                              910 BA2046.2026.DOC



                      together to dispose of that money as they want and make it more
                      difficult to recover.

                      8.       Mr. Khan, the learned APP submitted that the said
                      Company is a Public Limited Company providing employment to
                      many. The offence committed by the Applicant has put such
                      Companies to unwanted financial loss which directly impacts on
                      its profits and its capacity to generate more employments for the
                      needy. Even the same company was the source of livelihood for the
                      Applicant’s family. However, without showing any loyalty, the
                      Applicant had illegally and unethically siphoned the money. As
                      such, the offence is serious.

                      9.       The conspectus of the above discussion is that there is a
                      strong prima facie case against the Applicant of having committed
                      the alleged offence. The offence is serious. Therefore, the
                      Applicant is not entitled for bail.

                      10.      As a result, the Application is rejected.

                      11.      It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are
                      confined to the determination of entitlement for bail and they may
                      not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or
                      otherwise of the Applicant and the trial Court shall not be
                      influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

                      12.      Since the Applicant is in custody, the trial Court is requested
                      to expedite the hearing and disposal of the said case.




  PREETI                                                (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
  HEERO
  JAYANI
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.08.14
17:52:46 +0530                                         Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…