Bombay High Court

PUROSHOTTAM GAJANAN PATANKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 17 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that, given the applicant’s ability to provide a substantial financial surety and the absence of any need for further custodial interrogation, bail should be granted under Section 483 BNSS 2023 subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay heard a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by Puroshottam Gajanan Patankar, who was charged under several IPC sections including 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 472 read with Section 34. The applicant’s relatives produced demand drafts totaling Rs.20 lakh and pledged further financial resources, arguing that the applicant could repay the alleged loss if released. The court examined the applicant’s financial capacity, the lack of need for further custodial interrogation, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Considering these factors, the court concluded that bail was appropriate. The bail was granted subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000, sureties, regular reporting to the investigating officer, and other standard conditions, without commenting on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences punishable under the listed IPC sections.
Whether the applicant’s financial surety and willingness to cooperate negate the necessity for further custodial interrogation.
Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to ensure the applicant’s attendance and non-interference with the trial.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472

Subjects

bail
Section 483 BNSS 2023
IPC offences
financial surety
custodial interrogation
trial cooperation

Judgment

47.BA.2558.2025.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2558 OF 2025

Puroshottam Gajanan Patankar .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Mr. Kedar J. Patil a/w. Ms. Sakshi S. Kadam and Mr. Tejas Shinde,
Advocates for Applicant.
 Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.
 Ms. Harshada Parbhane, Advocate i/by Mr. Prashant Patil for
Intervenor.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Phad,

learned APP for Respondent – State and Ms. Parbhane, learned

Advocate for Intervenor.

2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with

C.R.No.60 of 2024 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station,

District Pune for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409,

467, 468, 471 and 472 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

3. On 16.09.2026, after hearing the learned Advocates, this

Court passed the following order:-

1 of 6
47.BA.2558.2025.doc

“1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for State and Ms. Parbhane, learned
Advocate for Intervenor.
2. Mr. Patil would submit that relative of the Applicant has
managed to arrange Rs. 19 to 20 Lakh for deposit. He would
submit that once the Applicant is released on bail, he would be
in a much better position to wipe out the deposit with regard to
the amount he had otherwise received even according to the
prosecution.
3. I direct learned Advocate for Applicant to file appropriate
affidavit of relative of the Applicant to enable this Court to
consider the present Applicant for bail.
4. Stand over to 17th September, 2026 under the caption
“Part-Heard”.”

4. Today, I have heard Mr. Patil as well as Ms. Parbhane.

Undertaking has been filed by the son of Applicant who is a student

which states that 2 Demand Drafts aggregating to Rs20,00,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) are produced and appended to the said

undertaking. It is seen from the said undertaking that 2 Demand Drafts

of Rs7.32 Lakhs and Rs.12.68 Lakhs are to be deposited in IDBI Bank

as well as DBS Bank where the twin loan accounts have been

replenished on the basis of the EMIs which have been paid.

5. The Demand Drafts which is made in the name of Nitin

Patankar, one of the accused persons is on the basis of instructions

received from DBS Bank which is also stated in paragraph No.4. The

Affidavit is made by the son of Applicant who is a student and I have

no reason to disbelieve the same. The original Demand Drafts have

been shown to me in Court and I direct that they be deposited.

2 of 6
47.BA.2558.2025.doc

6. The son and the sister of Mr. Patankar are both present in

Court and they undertake to deposit the same as stated in the

undertaking. Mr. Patil has also argued on the basis of the amounts

stated in the charge-sheet with regard to the amounts received by fake

account in the name of Sanas Builders & Developers and would submit

that out of the total outlay of Rs.4.33 Crores, the owner’s contribution

has been paid by the other co-accused person (brother of the

Applicant) of Rs.1.46 Crores and to till date he has been regularly

depositing EMIs which add up to Rs.1.85 Crores.

7. He would submit that in that view of the matter, even at the

highest according to the charge-sheet, the balance amount payable

would be Rs.1.02 Crores out of which Rs.20 Lakhs is deposited today

and every endeavour shall be made by the Applicant, once he is

released on bail, to wipe off the ledger. He would also place on record

the Chartered Accountant’s report prepared by the Chartered

Accountant of the Applicant’s which has considered the twin loan

accounts with IDBI and DBS Bank. According to the said CA report, the

outstanding would be in the region of approximately Rs.59 Lakhs only.

8. I have noted the aforesaid submissions only because

pursuant to the previous orders, Applicant has shown his bonafides.

The effect of custody, rather custodial interrogation any further would

not be required, more specifically so when the First Informant /

3 of 6
47.BA.2558.2025.doc

Complainant's 6 flats have already been given to the Informant but the

arrears amounts which are required to be paid to the bank are yet

outstanding.

9. I am of the opinion that the Applicant who has had a good

history of being a Developer or otherwise, would be in a much better

position to wipe off the deficit once he is released on bail, rather than

he languishing inside jail. The investigation having been completed, in

my opinion, no further custodial interrogation is required. Ms.

Parbhane’s submissions have been considered by the Court. However,

the overall circumstances persuade the Court to release the Applicant

on bail.

10. Needless to state that any cooperation with the prosecution

shall be rendered by the Applicant once he is released on bail. In that

view of the matter, the present application stands allowed.

11. 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 – Puroshottam Gajanan Patankar is directed

to be immediately released from prison in connection

with CR. No.60 of 2024;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

4 of 6
47.BA.2558.2025.doc

furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand

only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, once every month,

on the first Monday 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

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

5 of 6
47.BA.2558.2025.doc

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.

12. 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.

13. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

AjayDigitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.17
18:10:45 +0530

6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…