Bombay High Court
YOGESH SHARAD KADAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the applicant does not merit bail and dismissed the bail application.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC (and the analogous provision in the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) filed by Yogesh Sharad Kadam, the managing director of Season Worlds, who was charged with cheating offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 409 read with 34, as well as provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. The prosecution alleged that Kadam lured investors with promises of 14% monthly returns, collected over Rs 5.32 crore, and failed to deliver any returns after the first month, diverting the money into a group of companies and a Dubai entity. The applicant argued for bail on the basis of parity with co‑accused who had been released and cited his willingness to cooperate after 19 months of incarceration. The court rejected the parity argument, noting the seriousness of the fraud, the risk of further misappropriation, the attachment of the applicant’s property, and the lack of any bonafide justification. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the related interim application disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused director in a large‑scale cheating case involving alleged investment fraud.
- Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused who obtained bail applies in the present circumstances.
- Whether the applicant’s time already spent in custody and alleged cooperation justify release on bail.
- Whether the attachment of the applicant’s assets and the risk of further misappropriation affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316, 318, 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 409, 420
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- investment fraud
- IPC 420
- Section 439 CrPC
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act
- financial scam
- parity principle
Judgment
26.BA.3933.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3933 OF 2025
Yogesh Sharad Kadam .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4432 OF 2025
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3933 OF 2025
Arti W/o. Vinayak Gupte .. Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Yogesh Sharad Kadam .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
.................…
Mr. Salman Pathan a/w. Mr. Prasad Arun Kamthe, Advocates for
Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam a/w. Mr. Jitendra S. Sawant, Advocates i/by
Om N. Latpate for Respondent No.2.
WPC/8069 – Shelar Rani, EOW, Pune City.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pathan, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Nikam,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) corresponding to Section 483 of
1 of 7
26.BA.3933.2025.doc
the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection
with C.R. No.284 of 2023 registered with Sahakarnagar Police Station
for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to Sections
318, 316 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors Act, 1999.
3. Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the present Crime.
He is seeking release on regular bail by virtue of the present
Application. There are 7 Accused persons in the crime and the first
contention of Mr. Pathan is that Accused Nos.2 to 4 have been granted
bail / Anticipatory bail by this Court and therefore on parity as well as
Applicant having been spent 19 months in incarceration and Applicant
is ready and willing to cooperate, Applicant should be released on bail.
4. At the first blush, submission appears to be strong but I am
not inclined to accept the same, rather reject the same forthwith for
more than one reason. Applicant is the owner / Director and was
carrying on business in a Company called Season Worlds engaged in
providing online services and more specifically focused on investments
in stock market, Forex Trading and Crypto Currency. Case of
prosecution stems from the fact that Applicant lured investors and
more specifically atleast six victims who are before the Court into
2 of 7
26.BA.3933.2025.doc
making investments in his Company by promising them very high
returns to the tune of approximately 14 percent per month. One such
investor duly represented by Advocate – Nikam whose name is Dilip
Govind Naik is before the Court. He is the Complainant.
5. Investigation by prosecution has revealed that Complainant
invested Rs.2.20 Crores of his retirement dues with Applicant –
Company some time in July – 2023. However in order to gain his
confidence, Applicant gave him return of Rs.2.8 Lakhs in the first
month immediately thereafter. Such was the modus operandi of
Applicant in having lured five another investors to the tune of Rs.5.12
Crores. After the first month all returns dried and investors were left
in the lurch to fend for themselves.
6. The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was thereafter
filed for the offences of cheating. Private Complainant has himself lost
Rs.2.17 Crores. Investigation further revealed that none of the other
investors have got any returns on their any amounts. The FIR was
lodged on 08.11.2023. Investments were taken by the Applicant
between February – 2022 and September – 2023 from the victims.
Applicant was arrested on 04.01.2025.
7. In this background, Mr. Pathan has vehemently submitted
that in view of Accused Nos.2 to 4 having been granted bail /
Anticipatory bail, Applicant has made out strong case on parity. I do
3 of 7
26.BA.3933.2025.doc
not subscribe to the said submission at all. Applicant being Managing
Director of the Company called Season World Company virtually lured
investors. There is grave possibility that apart from the victims who
are before the Court there will be many others also.
8. What is more shocking and which goes to the root of the
matter, is the statement of the Applicant. Applicant has audacity to
submit that he has invested the amounts received from the victims
with some Company in Dubai. The details of the said Company and
the names of the person running the said Company in Dubai are given
to the prosecution. However, in so far as the present crime is
concerned, it is seen that modus operandi of the Applicant was to lure
gullible investors by promising them high returns in his Company
called Seasons Capitalz by showing flow charts of dynamic returns @
14% per month which translates as a guarantee payout. This 14% per
month pay out virtually translates into 168 % returns per annum. Such
was the lure which is prima facie seen from the material which is
accumulated / assimilated by the prosecution which was shown to the
gullible investors by Seasons World Captialz by stating that they would
be operating in the international currency market.
9. What is crucial is that the Company lured the investors by
placing before them an interlock system for getting the clients
approved after making provision for the the monthly payouts. As is the
4 of 7
26.BA.3933.2025.doc
case of Complainant before the Court, he was given a monthly payout
of Rs.1.28 Lakhs in order to gain his confidence. Notwithstanding the
fact that the Company had provided to the client an exit for
withdrawing the invested amount in the system without any restriction
from the Company owner, the same was nothing but a ploy by the
Company and the Applicant as a point of no return.
10. Prima facie, evidence is placed before the Court by Mr.
Pathan to the effect that the Dubai Company did not return the
investment of the amounts invested by the Applicant and therefore the
Applicant was unable to pay his clients. We can understand if there is
a business relationship with their clients but here is a case where once
the monies are taken by the Applicant’s Company, the Applicant has
thereafter diversified and introduced the said amount to his group of
Companies which are not known even to the Complainant or investors
namely Season Worlds Group of Companies comprising of Season
Worlds Corporation, Season Worlds Capitalz, Season Worlds Urban
Nidhi Limited, Season World Holidays, Season Worlds Developer.
Being Managing Director of this Season World Group of Companies,
the Applicant therefore cannot shirk his responsibility.
11. Property worth only Rs.87 Lakhs, comprising of two flats
belonging to the Applicant has been attached by the prosecution. This
itself shows the conduct and the modus operandi of the Applicant.
5 of 7
26.BA.3933.2025.doc
There are no bonfafides forthcoming from the Applicant either. As a
matter of right, the Applicant pleads that he should be released on bail
on parity. On the issue of parity, the Applicant cannot have any case.
The three persons who have been let out on bail /Anticipatory bail
were unfortunately the employees of the Applicant himself and his
Company. This is what the Court has considered while letting them
out on bail. The substantive material placed by prosecution on record
in my opinion is such that the Applicant has cheated gullible investors.
It is also equally true that investors should also keep their eyes wide
open when they enter into such transactions but it is ultimately the
fragility of the human mind that lures them into such investments.
12. In such cases, people like Applicant hold the upper hand.
The case of Applicant rather his conduct is not free from doubt at all.
There are antecedents against the Applicant and therefore in my
opinion, the Applicant deserves to remain in jail. Yesterday i.e.
17.08.2026 when the matter was heard fully and was kept today, an
offer was extended to the Applicant to show his bonafides to the extent
of the case of prosecution and bring back the monies as he had
received them by any means. Applicant took advantage of that offer
given by the Court after hearing all the parties and today holding his
head up high informs the Court that he is not in position but deserves
bail on parity.
6 of 7
26.BA.3933.2025.doc
13. For all the aforesaid reasons and observations, Applicant
does not deserve to be let out on bail.
14. Bail Application is dismissed. In view of dismissal of Bail
Application, pending Interim Application is also disposed accordingly.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.19
10:03:31 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…