Bombay High Court

DHANANJAY @ DANY TOKEN ROYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: MEHROZ ASHRAF KHAN PATHAN

Holding

The Court held that the applicant’s limited participation, lack of antecedents, and the parity principle justify granting bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Summary

The applicant, Dhananjay Roy, was arrested in connection with a fraud case (Crime No.378 of 2025) involving the provision of fictitious bank account details to co‑accused Kshitij Sutar, who used them to receive Rs.3.5 crore from a senior citizen. He is charged under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C), 66(D) and 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The applicant argued that he played a limited role, has no prior criminal record, and that the co‑accused has already been released on bail, invoking the principle of parity. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the fraud and the large amount involved. The Court, after reviewing the charge‑sheet and noting the applicant’s lack of antecedents and the completed investigation, exercised discretion under Section 483 of the BNS and granted regular bail with strict conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused with a limited role in a serious fraud under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the IT Act.
Whether the principle of parity applies when a co‑accused in the same case has already been released on bail.
Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence outweighs the applicant’s right to bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 483
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 43, 66(C), 66(D)

Subjects

bail
fraud
cybercrime
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Information Technology Act
parity principle
senior citizen fraud
criminal procedure

Judgment

1
45-BA-427-2026 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 427 OF 2026

Dhananjay @ Dany Token Roy …...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr …...Respondents

-----
Adv. Jolly Bhutelo a/w Mr. Pratik Bodekar, Mr. John Bhutelo, Mr. Suresh
Patil and Mr. Amit Rakshe, for Applicant.
Mr. Anand Subhash Shalgaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
-----

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.

Digitally signed
by SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.08.07
13:02:17 +0530

Respondent-State.

2. The Applicant has approached this Court for seeking regular bail

in connection with Crime No.378 of 2025 registered with Rajarampuri

Police Station, Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections

316(2), 318(4), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and under Sections 66©, 66(D) & 43 of

the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Jolly Bhutelo, appearing for the Applicant

submits that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime. Even if

the first information report does not name the present Applicant as the

accused. The charge-sheet is filed in the present crime, also attributed the

Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
45-BA-427-2026 (CR).DOC

limited role of the present Applicant for providing the bank accounts

information to one of the co-accused Kshitij Sutar. The co-accused Kshitij

Sutar, who is alleged to have received the information and the documents

of the fictitious bank account holder from Applicant, is already released on

bail by this Court vide order dated 06/05/2026 passed in Criminal Bail

Application No.360 of 2026. The Applicant is arrested on 15/07/2025 and

he is behind bars since then. The entire investigation is completed and

charge-sheet has already been filed. There are number of witnesses cited

by the prosecution. The trial has not yet commenced and the trial will take

its own time to conclude. The Applicant is not having any criminal

antecedents and is further ready to abide by any conditions that may be

imposed by this Court. Hence, the Applicant may be released on regular

bail.

4. As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the bail

application on the ground that the Applicant has found to be involved in

the serious offence of duping a senior citizen by fraudulently representing

that her name is found to be one of the financial scam and ask for money

to clear her name. The Applicant has provided the fake bank accounts

details to the accused Kshitij Sutar, who has then utilized the said bank

accounts to received the fraudulent money. The Applicant is alleged to

have provided the information and have also opened the fake accounts in

the name of fictitious persons, who do not even exist. The said accounts

were then utilized by the accused Khsitij Sutar to receive the fraudulent

Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
45-BA-427-2026 (CR).DOC

amount. The offence is serious in nature, where the senior citizen is duped

of more than 3.5 crore. Hence, this is not a fit case to release the Applicant

on bail.

5. I have gone through the investigation papers which has

culminated into filing of the charge-sheet. The gist of the allegations in the

charge-sheet, itself would suggest that the limited role of the present

Applicant. The Applicant has provided the fraudulent data to open some

fictitious account, and thereafter, assisted the other accused person in

siphoning of the fraudulent amount received from the complainant. The

Applicant is alleged to have provided the bank details to accused Khsitij

Sutar, as per the charge-sheet. Interestingly Kshitij Sutar is also released on

bail by this Court vide order dated 06/05/2026 passed in Bail Application

No.360 of 2026. Hence, in my opinion, the principles of parity squarely

applies. Except for the aforesaid role, there is no other role to connect the

present applicant with present crime in the entire charge-sheet.

6. Taking into consideration, the further facts that the Applicant is

not having criminal antecedents and is arrested on 15/07/2025. The entire

investigation is completed and charge-sheet has already been filed. The

trial is not yet commenced. There are several witnesses cited by the

prosecution. The trial is not likely to be conclude within stipulated period.

Hence, I am inclined to exercise the discretion under Section 483 of the

BNSS to release the Applicant on bail upon certain conditions. Hence, the

following order:

Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
45-BA-427-2026 (CR).DOC

ORDER

i. The application is allowed.

ii. The Applicant - Dhananjay @ Dany Token Roy, in connection with Crime

No.378 of 2025 registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur, for

the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) read with

Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and

under Sections 66(C), 66(D) & 43 of the Information Technology Act,

2000, shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees only) with one or two sureties in the

like amount, on the following conditions:

A) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in every
two months from 10th date of every two months starting from 10 th August,
2026.

B) The Applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall attend
each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.

C) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or
attempt to influence or threaten any witness in any manner. A single
incident of such conduct would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation
of the bail granted to the present applicant.

D) A single default by the Applicant in violating any of the conditions
would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the
Applicant.

E) The Applicant, upon being released on bail, shall furnish his
residential address, contact number, and copies of his Aadhaar / PAN Cards

Shantanu S. Dhudum
5
45-BA-427-2026 (CR).DOC

to the Investigating Officer as well as trial Court, and shall also provide the
names, addresses, and contact numbers of his close relatives for the
purpose of record and verification.

F) The bail application is allowed in the above terms and stands

disposed of.

G) Needless to states that the observations rendered herein are to

the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by

the same.

7. In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the application is

allowed and stands disposed off accordingly.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.)

Shantanu S. Dhudum

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…