Bombay High Court

RAM NIVAS VENGALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 10 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

Bail was granted to the applicant with specified conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Ram Nivas Vengala, was arrested on 19 June 2024 in connection with a fraud case involving 14 accused, where he is accused No.4. The prosecution alleged that other accused induced investors and that the applicant transferred the proceeds to other accounts, but no specific allegation of inducement was made against him. The applicant sought bail after a prior bail application was rejected, and the State opposed bail on grounds of potential flight risk, seeking stringent conditions. The court examined the record, noted the absence of any charge of inducement against the applicant, and considered his prolonged pre‑trial detention of over two years. It concluded that continued incarceration was unwarranted and granted bail with detailed conditions, including a surety bond, surrender of passport, reporting requirements, and a restriction on leaving Maharashtra without magistrate’s permission. The order was limited to bail considerations and did not address the merits of the trial.

Issues considered

The applicant's entitlement to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk warranting restriction on travel outside Maharashtra.
The appropriateness of imposing specific bail conditions such as surrender of passport and regular reporting.
The procedural propriety of allowing an amendment to join the informant as Respondent No.2.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(B), 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
fraud
conspiracy
flight risk
Indian Penal Code
pre‑trial detention
conditions of bail

Judgment

Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN (902) BA-2466.25.DOCX
CHANDAN Date:
2026.07.10
20:48:46 +0530
lgc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2466 OF 2025

Ram Nivas Vengala : Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents.

----

Mr. Mithilesh Mishra for the Applicant.
Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Dinesh Adsule a/w Mr. Vaibhav Bhole and Mr. Chinmay Bhole
for Respondent No.2/Complainatn.
API R. M. Parve, Crime Branch Unit -M 03, Navi Mumbai present.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 10 JULY 2026
PC:-

1. Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that although leave was granted to add the Informant as
Respondent No. 2, the amendment remained to be carried due to
error on his part. He therefore seeks leave to carry out the
amendment forthwith. This request is not opposed by Mr. V. B.
Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent No. 1/State, and
Mr. Dinesh Adsule, learned Advocate for the original Complainant.
In view of the no objection, leave is granted to carry out the
amendment to join the Informant as Respondent No.2.
Amendment be carried out forthwith.

1
(902) BA-2466.25.DOCX

2. Heard Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent
No.1 and Mr. Dinesh Adsule, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.2.

3. By the present Application, the Applicant seeks bail in C.R.
No. 206/2024 registered with Kalamboli Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. There are 14 accused in the present crime. Applicant is
Accused No.4.

5. The C. R. No. 206 of 2024 is registered as RCC No. 876 of
2024, and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Panvel (“Magistrate”).

6. The case of the prosecution is that Suman S. Sharma
(Accused No.1) falsely represented himself as the Branch Manager
and official of the UCO Bank at Mumbai Mahanagar Pradesh
Lokhand and Polad Bazar Samiti and gained the trust of various
innocent investors. On the basis of false representations and
promises, he induced innocent investors to invest huge amounts.
Accused No.1 received various cheques and thereafter issued
forged fixed deposit receipts prepared by him. The rest of the
accused conspired with Accused No.1 and cheated investors.

7. Applicant was arrested on 19 June 2024. Bail Application
No. 17 of 2025 filed by the Applicant before the Sessions Judge,
Panvel, Raigad (“Sessions Court”) was rejected on 20 March 2025.

2
(902) BA-2466.25.DOCX

8. Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the allegations of inducing investors in the present
crime, by false promises of huge returns were made against
Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. He submits that, on the basis of
inducement by the said Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, the amounts
were received by Accused No. 1. He submits that the only
allegation against the Applicant is that the amounts received by
Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were transferred by the Applicant to
various other accounts after being credited to the bank accounts of
Accused No. 1. He submits that the amount of Rs.1,92,40,000/-
has been attached from the Applicant. He submits that Accused
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have not been arrested.

9. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent
No. 1/State, submits that the Applicant has conspired with the co-
accused. He submits that the Applicant has received Rs.
14,13,08,299/-. He submits that Accused No. 1, who has received
Rs. 53,77,50,000/-, was arrested along with Accused Nos. 2, 3, and
5, but their arrests were declared illegal.

10. Mr Dinesh Adsule, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2,
submits that the Applicant, along with Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5,
as well as other Accused named in the present crime, have
systematically cheated the Respondent No. 2 / Investors. He
further submits that Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the persons
who have lured and induced the Respondent No. 2 and other
investors to part with their hard-earned money.

11. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned
Advocates for the parties.

3
(902) BA-2466.25.DOCX

12. Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the allegations of inducement and false promises of
huge returns on investment made to Respondent No. 2/Investors
are against Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh,
learned APP for Respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Dinesh Adsule,
learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, confirm the said position.

13. Perusal of the records does not indicate any allegations of
inducement against the Applicant. The allegation against the
Applicant, as submitted by Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP
for the Respondent No.1/State, is that the Applicant distributed
amounts received in the account of Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

14. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh and Mr. Dinesh Adsule were
unable to point to any material on record showing that the
Applicant induced or made false promises to Respondent No. 2 /
Investors to part with their amounts.

15. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 were arrested in connection with
the present crime. As submitted by Mr V. B. Konde-Deshmukh,
learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Mr Dinesh Adsule,
learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, the arrest of Accused
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 was held to be illegal.

16. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent
No.1-State, submits that the Respondent No.1-State is in the
process of taking appropriate steps available in law in the context
of Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

17. Considering the above-mentioned facts, the absence of any
allegation of inducement against the Applicant, the Accused Nos.

4
(902) BA-2466.25.DOCX

1, 2, 3 and 5 who are alleged to have lured and induced the
Respondent No. 2/Investor to part with money not in custody and
the fact that the Applicant has been in jail since 19 June 2024 (i.e.
for more than two years), the further continuation of the
Applicant's incarceration pending trial, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, is not warranted.

18. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent No.
1-State and Mr. Dinesh Adsule, learned Advocate for Respondent
No. 2, submit that the Applicant is a resident of Hyderabad. They
express apprehension that if the Applicant is permitted to travel
outside the State of Maharashtra, he would be a flight risk. They
request the imposition of stringent bail conditions, including a
condition that the Applicant, pending the trial in RCC No. 876 of
2024, should not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior
permission from the Magistrate before whom the trial is pending.

19. Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on
instructions, submits that the Applicant, upon his release on Bail,
will not travel outside the State of Maharashtra without obtaining
the prior permission of the Magistrate.

20. This Application is therefore allowed on the following
terms:

(a) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No. 206 of 2024 registered with
Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, upon furnishing a P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) with one or two sureties, each in the like amount,

5
(902) BA-2466.25.DOCX

to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Panvel in RCC No. 876 of 2024.

(b) Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade that
person from disclosing the facts to the Court or any
police officer and shall not tamper with evidence.

(c) Applicant shall, within three (3) days of his
release from jail, provide to the Investigating Officer,
Crime Branch Unit-03, Navi Mumbai, his residential
address, contact numbers, e-mail and must inform the
Investigating Officer about any change in the same from
time to time.

(d) Applicant shall surrender his passport to the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel, in
RCC No. 876 2024 within 3 days of his release from jail.

(e) Applicant shall report to the Investigating
Officer, Crime Branch Unit-03, Navi Mumbai on the 2 nd
and 4th Saturday of each month from 11.00 am to 12.00
noon till conclusion of trial in RCC No.876 of 2024.

(f) Applicant shall regularly appear before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in RCC No.876 of
2024 as and when the matter is fixed, unless specifically
exempted.

(g) If the Applicant abstains from appearing before
the Magistrate, then the same would be considered as a

6
(902) BA-2466.25.DOCX

breach of conditions and the Magistrate would be at
liberty to pass appropriate orders.

(h) Applicant shall not leave the State of
Maharashtra without prior permission from the
Magistrate.

21. Observations made in this order are prima facie limited to
consideration of the Bail and shall not be treated as findings on the
merits.

22. Criminal Bail Application No.2466 of 2025 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…