YOGESH POPAT NAVALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                       37-BA-4399-25.doc


         rsk
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             BAIL APPLICATION NO.4399 OF 2025

                              Yogesh Popat Navale                                .. Applicant
                                         Versus
                              The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                    .. Respondents

                                                        ....................
                               Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w. Mr. Harsh Rathod and Mr. Prithviraj
                                Mundwadkar for Applicant.
                               Mr. Radhikesh V. Uttarwar a/w. Ms. Pooja R. Thakur and Ms.
                                Pradnya C. Solanki for Original Complainant.
                               Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent-State.
                               Mr. Kashinath Jadhav , PSI, Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune.
                                                          ...................

                                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                                         DATE          : AUGUST 27, 2026
                              P.C.:

                              1.       Heard Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil for the Applicant, Mr.

                              Radhikesh V. Uttarwar for original complainant, Ms. Anuja Gotad, APP

                              for Respondent-State.


                              2.       The applicant before me is incarcerated in jail since 25 April

                              2025. The date of registration of FIR is 20 January 2025. The FIR is

                              filed by the Director of the Company called Jenesis Event Management

                              Company. The date of offence stated in the FIR is 20 February 2014

                              to 20 January 2025. The charges invoked against the applicant are
           Digitally signed
           by
           RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
SUBODH
                              under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(1), 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 238,
           KARVE
KARVE      Date:
           2026.08.29
           18:23:40 +0530


                              340(2) and 3(5) of BNS. Essentially, the applicant is arrested for


                                                                                                  1 of 9
                                                          37-BA-4399-25.doc


cheating and criminal breach of trust . According to the prosecution

case, applicant is an Accountant by profession and was employed to

look after day-to-day affairs of Jenesis Event Management Company. In

view of the trust reposed in him by the complainant, the applicant has

eroded that trust over a period of more than 9 years, he has

systematically siphoned and diverted a humongous amount of Rs. 8.63

crore by transferring the company funds into various accounts

including his own separate accounts maintained in other banks and

thereafter using the said money to invest in properties, share trading

and buying luxury cars and by showing wrong transfers in the books of

the Company.


3.        The case of the prosecution also hints at the applicant having

formed a Company called Pune Solar Energy Pvt Ltd along with his

wife with the said diverted money belonging to the complainant

company. The modus operandi of the applicant over a period of 9

years is duly reflected in the exhaustive material which is placed before

me. It is seen that the applicant has systematically diverted the money

belonging to the complainant company in view of the applicant being

the sole repository of the password and OTP on behalf of the

complainant’s company and he has betrayed the trust of his employer

and transferred humongous amounts not running in to thousands and

lakhs of rupees but crores of rupees systematically over a period of

time. Since the account of the complainant’s company was a very big

                                                                    2 of 9
                                                         37-BA-4399-25.doc


account concerned with event management, the applicant took undue

advantage of the company’s operations by inserting wrongful entries

in the account books and siphoned off the said amounts into his own

personal accounts. The first information report at page no.26 onwards

prima facie shows the modus operandi of the applicant and is prima

facie backed by substantial evidence. The company’s auditor Mr.

Vikrant Pacharne persuaded the applicant in 2024 to give the details of

the bank accounts because he found out that there was something

sinister happening therein and the account entries were not matching

at all. The applicant kept on delaying the aforesaid issue and did not

give any details to the concerned auditor. The auditor along with

another partner of the company thereafter took a search of the

accounts of the company held in various private banks and obtained

bank statements and found out that the applicant had systematically

camouflaged and transferred substantial amounts at various intervals

into multiple accounts under the name “CBSE Tax Account” so that the

said account entries would not be detected by the complainant

company or its auditor. All along the company and the auditor believed

that these were amounts which were paid to the tax department

towards company’s     liability but the applicant behaved in such a

surreptitious manner that all this came to light only when the auditor

and another partner of the company unearthed the modus operandi of

the applicant after the Company’s accounts did not add up at all.

                                                                    3 of 9
                                                          37-BA-4399-25.doc


4.        The second charge against the applicant is that in order to

overcome his dubious actions of siphoning off and diverting the

company’s money, the applicant prepared false account statements and

kept them in the company’s record. The charge against him is that he

has used the complainant’s money for repairing a new house in his

village, has invested the money in “Satta” in the share market and has

transferred the amounts to his wife’s account and his relative’s account

including his mother’s account and purchased luxury cars.

5.        In view of the modus operandi of the applicant, prima facie I

am not inclined to consider the case of the applicant. Mr. Gaware Patil

has argued the matter on behalf of the applicant to the extent that the

applicant is in incarceration for 1 year 4 months and it should be

treated as long incarceration, as nothing further is required to be

interrogated or discovered from the applicant and therefore the

applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of long

incarceration itself. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gaware-Patil has

referred to a factual aspect and a legal aspect.

6.        On the factual aspect, Mr. Gaware-Patil has placed before me

an affidavit in support of assets disclosure and undertaking given by

the wife of the applicant. What is stated in the affidavit is that there

are 4 properties which are already attached by the prosecution whose

total approximate market value according to the deponent of the

affidavit is approximately Rs. 2 crores. This in itself would be doubtful

                                                                    4 of 9
                                                           37-BA-4399-25.doc


because there is no supporting material regarding valuation.

7.        Mr. Gaware Patil in his usual fairness informs the Court that

all those properties are now encumbered with an entry that they have

been attached in the present proceedings. However, there is no other

material save and except the statement in the affidavit that the value

of the properties is approximately Rs. 2 crores. Even assuming for the

sake of argument that the value is 2 crores, still I would not like to give

any benefit of such disclosure to the applicant, since this is not a

disclosure made by the deponent of the affidavit to show bonafides.

Only properties at serial numbers 2 and 3 are attached by the

prosecution. Insofar as properties at serial number 1 and 4 in the

affidavit are concerned, primarily their value is a mere Rs.75 lakhs

even according to the deponent and therefore they are of virtually

negligible value.

8.        In paragraph 8, in order to show bona fides, the deponent of

the affidavit has made an averment that she and the applicant will

jointly undertake to deposit a total sum of Rs. 50 lakhs within a period

of 3 months from today, if the bail application is granted and allowed.

The statement made in paragraph no. 8 is prima facie, on the face of

record, unqualified. Because when a pointed question is asked to Mr.

Gaware-Patil as to how these monies will be raised, he maintains a

stoic silence. He submits that he has no instructions with regard to the

same. Neither does the affidavit clarify the same. When a humongous

                                                                     5 of 9
                                                           37-BA-4399-25.doc


amount of Rs. 50 lakhs is attempted to be raised within a period of 3

months, it prima facie shows that the monies are available but nothing

is disclosed as to how the said monies will be raised. The affidavit

which is filed by the deponent, wife of the applicant does not inspire

any confidence of this Court at all.

9.     Next Mr. Gaware-Patil would argue on the legal submission that

incarceration of the applicant for 1 year and 4 months is in itself long

incarceration and the applicant, if released on bail shall make every

attempt to deposit the amount. The said statement also does not

inspire any confidence of this Court. He refers to a decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Dham versus Directorate of

Enforcement1 and draws my attention to paragraph Nos.15 to 18

thereof and argue on the principles of applicability of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India to the facts of the applicant’s case and submit that

this is an economic offence and since property worth Rs.2 crores has

been attached, substantial compliance has been shown by the applicant

and the applicant is therefore entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10.           He would draw a parallel with the cited case insofar as the

applicant’s case is concerned, which I prima facie refuse to accept. The

economic offence for which the applicant is indicted and arrested in

the present case is such that he has eroded the trust of the company

which gave him employment over a period of more than 8 to 9 years in


1 S.L.P. (Cri) No.15478 of 2025 , dated 6 January 2026,

                                                                     6 of 9
                                                          37-BA-4399-25.doc


a very systematic and planned manner. If I am required to accept the

submission made by Mr. Gaware-Patil that on showing substantial

compliance, and the applicant’s properties worth approximately to Rs.2

crores have been disclosed and attached, the applicant deserves to be

enlarged on bail, in my opinion, this will give a wrong signal to the

society at large because this Court day in and day out decides such

kind of applications for grant of bail. I am not inclined to consider the

aforesaid submission on long incarceration as a matter of right as

argued by Mr. Gaware-Patil

11.       Another submission, rather legal submission advanced by Mr.

Gaware Patil is that even if the applicant is ultimately punished and

convicted, he will have to undergo sentence of 7 years and therefore,

he having remained incarcerated for 1 year 4 months should be

considered as a substantial period of ignominy of the applicant for the

purpose of grant of bail to the applicant. Such a submission made

appears to be very fancy across the Bar, but it would in my opinion

serve as a wrong precedent if allowed, especially in the case where the

applicant has been involved in a deep conspiracy over a substantial

period of nine years of duping his own employer. Moreover, it is seen

that when the applicant was required to disclose and produce the

details, but the applicant did not cooperate at all with the auditor of

the company and it is only thereafter that it was discovered by the

company that the applicant had siphoned off and diverted substantial

                                                                    7 of 9
                                                         37-BA-4399-25.doc


amounts. The criminal intent of applicant was clear.

12.       The affidavit filed by the wife of the applicant is a bare

affidavit and the approximate value stated by the deponent also is

unbelievable, since there is no material in the affidavit filed to even

consider the statements in the affidavit.

13.       For all the aforesaid reasons, the facet of long incarceration

of 1 year 4 months in my opinion cannot be made applicable to the

applicant’s case, as a matter of right as argued by Mr. Gaware Patil

since the said facet though may have been invoked on the grounds of

application of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, it will

have to be exercised in a manner appropriate with the facts and

circumstances of a particular case.

14.       The   facts   and   circumstances   which    are   alluded   to

hereinabove, in my opinion, do not entitle the applicant to even argue

the facet of long incarceration of 1 year 4 months in view of the

sinister facts which have in fact been admitted by the applicant during

the course of submissions. In that view of the matter, the application

for enlargement on bail is dismissed.

15.       I have also heard Mr. Uttarwar, learned advocate for the

complainant. He has also assisted me in going through the record of

the case to pursuade the Court to consider the ignominy of the

complainant and whose faith was eroded by the applicant by

siphoning of humongous amounts over a substantial period of nine

                                                                   8 of 9
                                                          37-BA-4399-25.doc


      years.

      16.      Bail Application is dismissed.



rsk                                             [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]




                                                                    9 of 9