Bombay High Court
RAJU SIDDHYA SULIREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The court held that bail must be denied as the allegations constitute a serious economic offence with prima facie evidence, and releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Summary
The applicant was charged under multiple sections of the IPC, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act and the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Regulation for allegedly cheating investors by inducing them to invest in residential flats, forging documents, and diverting funds to a bogus company, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 37.04 crore. He was arrested in November 2023 and has been in judicial custody for two years while the investigation was completed and a charge‑sheet filed. The applicant contended that his firm does not qualify as a ‘financial establishment’ under the MPID Act, that there was no fraudulent default, and that parity should apply because co‑accused have been granted bail. The State argued that there is prima facie evidence of cheating, misappropriation, and multiple fraudulent partnership firms, and that the offence is a serious economic crime affecting many investors. Citing Supreme Court precedents on economic offences, the court held that granting bail would undermine public confidence and could encourage similar frauds. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- The applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged economic offence.
- Whether the applicant qualifies as a ‘financial establishment’ under the MPID Act and whether a fraudulent default is established.
- Whether the principle of parity applies given that co‑accused have been granted bail.
- Whether there is prima facie evidence of cheating, fraud, and misappropriation sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether public interest considerations justify the denial of bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(B), 34, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471
- Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 — s. 13, 4, 5, 8
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- economic offence
- fraud
- cheating
- IPC
- MPID Act
- investor protection
- partnership firm
- misappropriation
- public interest
Judgment
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4364 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO 184 OF 2026
Aspi Bejanji Tangri …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO 162 OF 2026
Mukesh Jawarimal Mehta …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2026
Ashwin R. Kosambia …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4364 OF 2025
Raju Siddhya Sulire …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Viral Babar a/w Yasir Kahan and Dhavan Shah for the
Applicant in B.A. 4364 of 2025
Mr. Ramprasad. V. Gupta a/w Rohit Vaishya for the Applicant in
I.A.162/2026
Ms. Amruta Kundep i/b Harshman Chavan for the Intervenor.
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 18th APRIL, 2026
PC:-
Page 1 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his
enlargement on bail in connection with FIR NO. I 135 of
2018, registered with Arnala Coastal Police Station for the
offences punishable under Section 406, 409,420, 465, 467,
471, 34 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’)
as well as under Section 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID), so
also under Section 4, 5, 8 and 13 of Maharashtra Ownership
of Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction Sale
Management and Transfer Act 1963.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was
lodged at the instance of the complainant, Nasim Sheikh
alleging that he along with other investors/depositors were
induced by the present Applicant and other co-accused, who
had allegedly formed various partnership firms, to invest in
proposed residential flats in a project situated at Virar Global
City, Chikhal Dongari.
3. The Applicant and co-accused entered into agreement
with prospective purchasers, induced them to invest
amounts under the pretext of allotment of residential flats
purportedly under construction at various locations. It is
further alleged that the accused persons sold the same flats
in various buildings to multiple purchasers by issuing forged
Page 2 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
and fabricated allotment letters and receipts by representing
himself as a partner in M/s. Mangal Mourya Builders and
Developers and collected substantial amounts from investors
through cash as well as banking channels on the assurance
of allotment of flats. Although collecting funds from
approximately 86 investors, the Applicant failed to complete
the construction and instead issued forged and fabricated
receipts and allotment letters. It is also alleged that the same
flats were sold to multiple purchasers, thereby cheating the
investors and the present Applicant diverted the funds
collected into the accounts of another entity, namely “Money
Max”, purportedly engaged in financial activities. The total
amount allegedly involved in the offence is approximately
Rs. 37,03,98,424/-.
4. The Applicant came to be arrested on 03.11.2023. He
is presently in judicial custody. Co-accused persons,
including partners and agents allegedly involved in the
offence, have also been arrested. The investigation is
complete and charge-sheet has been filed.
Page 3 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
5. The learned counsel for the applicant, states that the
applicant's company cannot qualify as a ‘Financial
Establishment’ within the meaning of section 2(d) of MPID
Act, so also it's mandatory that there must be a “fraudulent
Default” for repayment of an invested amount in order to
invoke section 3 of MPID Act. In order to substantiate the
above, he draws attention of court to the fact that mere
inability to repay, in absence of malafide intention, cannot
constitute an offence.
6. It is his further contention that the immovable property of
applicant is sold through public auction under supervision of
tehsildar, Vasai and out of the amount of Rs.1,16,00,000/- ,
70,00,000 was paid to GIC Housing Financial Ltd. and Rs.
41,60,000/- was paid to Ms.Rita Milan.
7. He drew attention of the court to several bail orders at
exhibit “G” contending that the other co-accused have been
granted regular bail or anticipatory bail by the competent
court and as the applicant remains to be in custody since last
2 years, parity will apply in the present case.
Page 4 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
8. Without prejudice, it is claimed that present Applicant
was merely a partner in the partnership firm, with no direct
role in the alleged financial transactions as such there is no
iota of evidence against him. All the amounts invested were
transferred to a fraudulent bank account of partnership firm
created by co-accused, Avinash Dhole along with Pradeep
Patil. Finally, it is submitted that the trial is not likely to
complete within short period of time and hence the
applicant be enlarged on bail.
9. The learned APP and counsel for intervenors
strenuously opposed applicants enlargement on bail citing
the seriousness of crime not only against investors,but
against society at large and draws the attention of the court
to chargesheet to show amount involved in the said crime to
the tune of Rs. 37,03,98,424. It is first argued that the
material on record prima facie demonstrates that the
amounts invested by several investors in the account of
various partnership firms were not utilised for the intended
purpose, but were siphoned off by the applicant along with
co-accused and transferred into the bogus bank accounts. It
Page 5 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
is contended that herein this case there is evidence to show
that applicant without any authority received amount from
investors and gave bogus agreements and receipts to them.
According to them, the allegations against Applicant are
serious in nature and hence, he is not entitled to be enlarged
on bail.
10. Prima facie Perusal of record indicates that from
numerous investors money has been received with clear
intention to defraud them. There is prima facie material on
record to show that applicant executive bogus documents
including receipts, agreements etc, without any authority.
There is substance in the contention of intervenors that same
flats are sold to 3 to 5 different purchasers, which shows his
malafide intentions. Subsequent to his arrest on
03/11/2023, the Applicant preferred a regular bail
application before MPID Special Court, which was rejected
on 31/08/2024. Thereafter, the Applicant again approached
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court seeking bail, but withdrew
the same on 07/05/2025 with liberty to file a fresh
application before the learned MPID Special Court, which
was unsuccessful.
Page 6 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
11. In so far as cheating and fabrication of documents is
concerned, it is prima facie appearing from the bare perusal
of the record that the present applicant established multiple
partnership firms, namely Mandar Realtors, M/s. Mandar
Housing Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Om Mandar Realtors, and M/s.
Mandar Associates, and opened bank accounts in their
names. Through these entities, he issued brochures and
advertisements for proposed residential projects at Virar
Global City, Chikhal Dongri, promising flats with modern
amenities, and collected substantial amounts from
purchasers by mode of cheque and cash.
12. Perusal of record further indicates that the applicant
failed to complete the construction within the stipulated
time and dishonestly sold the same flats to multiple buyers.
Further, despite having no association with M/s. Mangal
Morya Developers, he falsely represented himself as a
partner, fabricated receipts and allotment letters in its name,
and sold flats in the “Daulat Heights” project. With regards
to Applicant merely being a partner in the partnership firm
with no direct role. The investigations done by the police
Page 7 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
authorities revealed that the present applicant accepted a
total of Rs. 29,26,85,002/- from 86 investors, dishonestly
misappropriating the amount other than using it for
intended purpose and not honoring the promise for which
consideration was paid by multiple investors, so also cheated
them by incorporating a company named “MoneyMax
Finance” in his own name. The amount given by witnesses
for investment and flat purchases were transferred to the
MoneyMax company account in Dhanlaxmi Bank, Virar(W)
Branch. The amount was afterwards disbursed as loan
through MoneyMax Finance, which revealed financial fraud
being committed.
13. The allegations against the applicant amongst others
include preparation of bogus, receipts etc, without authority
and hence he cannot seek bail on parity.
14. The offences in question is economic offence affecting
large number of individuals. The Supreme Court has time to
time reiterated that economic offences involving deep-
rooted conspiracies and massive diversion of public money
stand on a different footing, since they seriously affect the
Page 8 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
16_BA-4364- 2025
Navnath Waghmare
economy of the nation and corrode the trust of the common
man in financial systems. [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI,
(2013) 7 SCC 466 and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI,
(2013) 7 SCC 439].
15. In light of the seriousness of the allegations and the
scale of the fraud, the Court is of the opinion that releasing
the applicant on bail would not be justified at this stage.
Grant of bail in such circumstances would not only
undermine public confidence in the justice system but may
also encourage repetition of similar fraudulent acts.
16. Considering all these aspects, the gravity of
allegations, the magnitude of fraud and the manner in which
innocent investors have been duped, this Court finds no
case being made out for grant of bail.
17. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. Other
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 9 of 9
18th APRIL, 2026
Checking your session…