Bombay High Court
ABHIJEET SANJAY KULKARNI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The bail application is dismissed as the applicants have not shown sufficient grounds for release.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Abhijeet Sanjay Kulkarni and another accused in a case involving alleged cheating of investors amounting to Rs.6.22 crore, charged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. The applicants had been in custody since June 2021 and had previously been denied bail by the Sessions Court, which also noted their repeated attempts to obtain temporary bail and alleged misuse of such relief. The State argued that the delay in framing charges was caused by the applicants, who had also been convicted earlier of similar offences, and that their deposit of Rs.75 lakh did not demonstrate bona fides. The Court examined the material, found a prima facie case of fraud, noted the applicants' role in delaying proceedings, and rejected the claim of denial of a speedy trial. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the right to bail given the length of pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the delay in framing charges is attributable to the accused.
- The relevance of the applicants' deposit of Rs.75 lakh as a demonstration of bona fides.
- The impact of prior convictions under the MPID Act on the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 406, 409, 420, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(D)
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- fraud
- cheating investors
- MPID Act
- speedy trial
- prior convictions
- charge framing delay
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL (905) BA-3035.24.DOCX
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.07.23
20:25:32
+0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3035 OF 2024
Abhijeet Sanjay Kulkarni And Anr. : Applicants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra : Respondents.
----
Mr. Avinash Avhad a/w Adv. Mandar Morankar for the Applicants.
Ms. Rajeshree Newton APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. V. A. Shastry for the Intervenor.
API Ganesh Jadhav, Deccan Police Station, Pune, present.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 22 JULY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the
Applicants, Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the
Respondent/State and Mr. V. A. Shatry, learned Advocate for the
Intervenor.
2. By the present Application, the Applicants seek bail in
connection with Crime No. 52 of 2021 registered with the Deccan
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409,
420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) Act (“MPID Act”) and Section 66(D) of the
Information Technology Act.
1
(905) BA-3035.24.DOCX
3. Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants,
states that there are four (4) accused in Crime No. 52 of 2021. He
further states that Applicant No.1 is Accused No.1 and Applicant
No.2 is Accused No.2. Crime No. 52 of 2021 is registered as Special
Case No. 723 of 2021 and is pending before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune (“Sessions Court”).
4. The case of the prosecution is that the Applicants (Accused
Nos. 1 and 2) lured and induced the Intervenor and other investors
(ten (10) investors referred to in the charge-sheet) by promising
higher returns on the amounts invested with them. Based on the
promises and assurances made by the Applicants, the investors
invested Rs. 6,22,39,000/- with the Applicants. The Applicants
neither returned the principal amount nor any interest thereon,
resulting in the registration of crime No. 52 of 2021.
5. Applicants were arrested on 25 June 2021. Bail Application
at Exhibit 148 on the file of the Special Case No.723 of 2021 was
rejected by the Sessions Court on 21 May 2024.
6. Records of this Application show that the Applicants were
granted interim bail by the Sessions Court.
7. Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants,
submits that the Applicants seek bail on two grounds. First, the
Applicants have been in custody for 5 years, from 25 June 2021 till
date and the charge has not been framed as on date. Second, he
submits that the amount involved in the present crime is
Rs.6,22,39,000/-, out of which the Applicants have deposited
Rs.75,00,000/- in the Court, which would show the bonafides of
the Applicants.
2
(905) BA-3035.24.DOCX
8. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent-
State, submits that the delay in framing the charge is directly and
squarely attributable to the Applicants. She submits that despite
several attempts by the Sessions Court to frame the charge, the
Applicants, in collusion with Accused Nos. 3 and 4, who have been
released on bail, have succeeded in delaying the commencement of
the trial. She submits that the Applicants have deliberately created
a situation and are now trying to take advantage of the same. She
submits that the Applicants are involved in luring and duping
investors using the same modus operandi as in the present crime.
She submits that the Applicants have criminal antecedents of a
similar nature, involving offences under the MPID Act, for which
they were convicted and sentenced to two years’ rigorous
imprisonment. She submits that the prosecution was and is willing
and ready to expedite the trial, however, the Accused are not
cooperating and creating hurdles.
9. Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for the Intervenor,
submits that the Applicants (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) are the
principal persons and masterminds who lured and induced the
Intervenor and other gullible investors to invest their hard-earned
money, amounting to Rs.6,22,39,000/-, on the false promise of
huge returns on the said investments. He submits that the
Applicants' intention from inception was dishonest and to cheat the
investors. He submits that the Intervenor and the investors have
been deprived of their hard-earned money. He submits that the
Applicants have been convicted of similar, in fact identical,
offences.
3
(905) BA-3035.24.DOCX
10. Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants,
submits that the Applicants have filed further proceedings against
their conviction in the case referred to by Ms. Rajeshree Newton,
learned APP.
11. Perused the records.
12. It would be relevant to note the observations made by the
Sessions Court in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the order dated 21 May
2024, passed on Exhibit 148, in the file of Special Case No. 723 of
2021, rejecting the bail application filed by the Applicants:
“16] The proceedings further indicate that time and
again the applicants have sought temporary bail. They
were on temporary bail for about 100 days. Though the
applicants contend that they did not misuse such
temporary bail, proceedings do not indicate that they
have not used said temporary bail for any purpose for
which it was granted.
17] Proceedings further indicate that on the
applications by the applicant, they were allowed to
meet, they were allowed to have internet access so also
access to their gazettes on their promise that they would
perform the activities to initiate the process of refund to
the depositors. At the end, all their promises turned out
to be false assurances. The applicants have taken the
Court on a ride on false assurances despite knowing that
them could do nothing. This is evident from various
orders passed in this case.
18] Proceedings further indicate that the applicants
and the co- accused have went on moving applications
one after another and thus have delayed framing of
charge though in a similar case against them, the Court
ultimately framed charges against them. These tactics
on the part of the applicants and the co-accused to delay
the framing of charges can be noticed and experienced
in almost every MPID case.”
(emphasis supplied)
4
(905) BA-3035.24.DOCX
13. Based on the observations of the Sessions Court, Ms.
Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent/State, is
justified in her submission that the delay in framing the charge is
attributable to the Applicants. Further, the observations of the
Sessions Court in Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the order dated 21
May 2024, passed on Exhibit 148 indicate the conduct and
approach of the Applicant, which prima facie appear not bona fide.
14. Though, Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the
Applicants, restricted the request for bail only on two grounds as
recorded in paragraph no. 7 hereinabove, and did not canvass any
arguments on the merits of the case, considering that the
Applicants are in jail for the period as submitted by Mr. Avinash
Avhad, I have perused the material which forms part of the charge-
sheet.
15. Perusal of the material on record substantiates the
contention of Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for the
Intervenor, that the credulous investors were indeed induced and
lured to invest their money on the promise of huge returns.
Applicants appear to have devised a systematic plan to target
investors. Prima facie case against the Applicants in respect of the
offences charged is made out.
16. Applicants have identical antecedents. Ms. Rajeshree
Newton, learned APP, and Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for
the Intervenor, submit that the said criminal antecedent is similar
and in fact, identical to the case in hand. The fact of the
antecedent, namely its similarity to crime No. 52 of 2021 and the
5
(905) BA-3035.24.DOCX
Applicants' conviction in the same, are not contested by Mr.
Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants.
17. Considering the observations made by the Sessions Court in
the order dated 21 May 2024, passed on Exhibit 148, the delay in
framing charge is squarely attributable to the Applicants. Ms.
Rajeshree Newton and Mr. V. A. Shastry are justified in contending
that the Applicants appear to have planned and created a situation,
thereby delaying the framing of the charge and the commencement
of the trial, with the intention of claiming an advantage from the
same.
18. For the reasons stated above, this is not a case in which the
Applicants can claim denial of a speedy trial. The Sessions Court,
in the order dated 21 May 2024 passed on Exhibit 148, has
assigned reasons for the delay in framing the charge, which are
attributable to the Accused. Thus, the ground of long incarceration
cannot be extended to the Applicants.
19. The second contention of Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned
Advocate for the Applicants, that the Applicants have shown bona
fides by depositing the sum of Rs.75,00,000/- in the Court, is taken
on record for the purpose of rejection. The total amount involved
in crime No. 52 of 2021 is Rs. 6,22,39,000/-. Apparently, the
Sessions Court had given sufficient opportunity to the Applicants to
show their bona fides, if any. What resulted from those
opportunities is recorded by the Sessions Court in paragraph No.
17 of the order dated 21 May 2024, passed on Exhibit 148.
Sessions Court in no less words has observed “….. . The applicants
have taken the Court on a ride on false assurances despite knowing that them
could do nothing….”
6
(905) BA-3035.24.DOCX
20. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, however, in all fairness, submits that the
prosecution has enlisted ten (10) witnesses in Special Case No. 723
of 2021 and is ready and willing to examine all 10 witnesses and
complete the trial at the earliest, subject to cooperation from the
Applicants and other Accused. She, on instructions, reiterates her
submission that the Applicants and other Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are
not cooperating in the trial, resulting in delay. This submission by
Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP, was met with silence from the
Applicants.
21. Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for the Intervenor,
endorses the submissions made by Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned
APP for the Respondent-State. He further states that the Intervenor,
who is one of the witnesses, is ready and willing to be examined.
22. In view of the above, Criminal Bail Application No.3035 of
2024 is rejected.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
7
Checking your session…