Bombay High Court

RAVIKANT PANDURANG RATHODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

The court allowed the bail application, directing release on a personal bond with specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Ravikant Pandurang Rathod, accused No.2 in a case (C.R. No. 893 of 2024) involving alleged cheating and fraud under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, together with his brother (accused No.1), induced a complainant to pay Rs. 32 lakh for land, executed a partial sale deed for only 23 gunthas and failed to return the balance consideration. The applicant’s counsel argued that the applicant merely accompanied the complainant to the property, had no substantive charge, had deposited Rs. 10 lakh with the trial court and raised no objection to its withdrawal. The court noted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, the applicant had been in custody for over a year, and the applicant’s cooperation regarding the deposited amount mitigated any risk. Consequently, the court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties and imposed conditions restricting inducement, mandating regular reporting to the investigating officer and appearance before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC pending trial.
Whether the applicant’s limited participation (only accompanying the complainant) negates the seriousness of the alleged offences for bail purposes.
Whether the applicant’s deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 with the trial court and his no‑objection to its withdrawal affect the bail decision.
Applicability of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for granting bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420

Subjects

bail
property fraud
cheating
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Section 483
Section 406
Section 420
Section 34
trial court conditions

Judgment

24-BA-4268-2025.doc

Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by GAYATRI
GAYATRI RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
SHIMPI Date:
2026.07.28
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
11:15:02 +0530

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4268 OF 2025

Ravikant Pandurang Rathod … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
-----

Ms. Anamika Malhotra i/b Mr. Prasad Arun Kamthe, Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for Respondent No. 1 – State.
Mr. Akshay Dingale, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. N. Thorat – PSI, Ambegaon Police Station, Pune City, present in
Court.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 27th JULY, 2026

P.C. :

1. Heard, Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for

the Applicant, Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.1-

State and Mr. Akshay Dingale, learned Advocate for Respondent

No. 2.

2. By the present Application filed under Section 483 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks

bail in C.R. No. 893 of 2024, registered at the Bharati Vidyapeeth

Gayatri shimpi 1
24-BA-4268-2025.doc

Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 406

and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, states that there are two Accused in Crime No. 893 of

2024. She states that the Applicant is Accused No. 2, whereas

Santosh Rathod is Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 893 of 2024. She

further states that Crime No. 893 of 2024 is registered as R.C.C.

No. 3389 of 2025 and is pending before the Court of the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Pune (“Trial Court”).

4. The prosecution case is that Respondent No. 2

(Informant) was induced by the Applicant and Accused No. 1 to

part with Rs. 32 lakhs on the assurance of transfer of plots in Gat

No. 144 of village Male, Taluka Bhor, District Pune. The allegations

are that, despite Respondent No. 2 having paid Rs. 32,00,000/-,

the Applicant and his brother (Accused No. 1) executed a Sale

deed in respect of only 23 gunthas. The Sale deed in respect of the

balance consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/- has neither been

executed nor has the amount been returned. Based on these

allegations, Respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint, which has

Gayatri shimpi 2
24-BA-4268-2025.doc

been registered as Crime No. 893 of 2024.

5. Applicant was arrested on 26.05.2025. Bail Application

No. 6229 of 2025 filed by the Applicant was rejected by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by order dated 16.10.2025.

6. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, submits that the allegations against the Applicant in the

Crime No. 893 of 2024 are that the Applicant accompanied the

Respondent No. 2 along with Accused No. 1 to the property. She

submits that Accused No. 1 has executed a part sale deed in favour

of the Informant. She submits that the Applicant has been in jail

for more than a year.

7. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, submits that the Applicant received Rs. 10,00,000/-.

She submits that the Applicant has deposited Rs. 10,00,000/-

before the Trial Court. On instructions from the Applicant, she

states that the Applicant has no objection to the Respondent No. 2

withdrawing the said amount. She again, on instructions from the

Applicant, gives her no objection to the Respondent No. 2

withdrawing the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited before

Gayatri shimpi 3
24-BA-4268-2025.doc

the Trial Court.

8. Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1-

State, submits that the Applicant and Accused No. 1 have induced

yet another person (Ashwini Avinash Thopate), by representing

that they would sell a plot of land for Rs. 6,50,000/-. She submits

that despite receiving Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Applicant and Accused

No. 1 have not executed the sale deed. She also submits that the

Applicant and Accused No. 1 are involved in another Crime No.

894 of 2024. She submits that in view of the statement made by

Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for the Applicant, the

Respondent No. 2 be permitted to withdraw the said amount of Rs.

10,00,000/- deposited before the Trial Court.

9. Mr. Akshay Dingale, learned Advocate for Respondent

No. 2, submits that although Respondent No. 2 has been handed

over possession of the property admeasuring 23 gunthas by way of

a registered sale deed, the balance property has not been handed

over despite the consideration amount of Rs. 19,50,000/- being

paid to Accused No. 1 and the Applicant. He submits that in view

of the statement and the no objection given by Ms. Anamika

Gayatri shimpi 4
24-BA-4268-2025.doc

Malhotra, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Respondent No. 2

shall file an appropriate application before the Trial Court and

withdraw the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the

Applicant before the Trial Court.

10. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned

Advocates.

11. Perusal of the records indicates that the transaction

which is the subject matter of Crime No. 893 of 2024 pertains to a

dispute regarding the sale and purchase of property. The statement

of Respondent No. 2 in Crime No. 893 of 2024 indicates that the

Applicant was present, along with his brother, Accused No. 1,

when the plot was shown to Respondent No. 2.

12. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, states that apart from the Applicant accompanying

Accused No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to identify the plot, there are

no allegations against the Applicant in Crime No. 893 of 2024.

This statement is not contested by Mr. Akshay Dingale, learned

Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Gayatri shimpi 5
24-BA-4268-2025.doc

13. Considering the nature of the dispute, the Applicant

being in jail since 26.05.2025, the statement made by Ms.

Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on

instructions from the Applicant, regarding the aforesaid amount

deposited by the Applicant before the Trial Court, the continuation

of the Applicant in jail pending the trial of R.C.C. No. 3389 of

2025 before the Trial Court, is not necessary.

14. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, reiterates her statements and the no-objection recorded

in para 7 of this order.

15. In view of the above, this Bail Application is allowed

on the following conditions :-

(a) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No. 893 of 2024 registered with
Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune City, upon
furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties, in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(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

Gayatri shimpi 6
24-BA-4268-2025.doc

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,
Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, his residential address
with proof, the contact numbers and must inform the
Investigating Officer about the change in the same from
time to time.

(d) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer,
Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune, on the 2nd
Monday of each month from 11.00 am to 12.00 noon,
until further orders from the Trial Court.

(e) Applicant shall regularly appear before the Trial
Court in R.C.C. No. 3389 of 2025, as and when the
matter is fixed, unless specifically exempted.

16. The observations made in the present order are meant

for the purpose of deciding the Bail Application and would not

have any impact or effect on the trial.

17. Criminal Bail Application No. 4268 of 2025 stands

disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Gayatri shimpi 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…