Bombay High Court

SURAJ TATYARAM SAYYKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: MEHROZ ASHRAF KHAN PATHAN

Holding

The Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and granted regular bail to the applicant.

Summary

Suraj Tatyaram Sayykar applied for regular bail in a case involving alleged fraud under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(c), 66(d), 43 of the IT Act, 2000. The charge‑sheet attributes to him a limited role of providing his bank account for the receipt and onward transfer of Rs 5,00,000. The State opposed bail, citing his prior conviction for a similar IT‑fraud and arguing a risk of re‑offending. The Court examined the charge‑sheet, noted that a co‑accused had already been released on bail, and considered the applicant’s willingness to deposit a further Rs 5,00,000 as surety. Exercising discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS, the Court held that the limited participation and the applicant’s readiness to furnish security justified granting bail, subject to strict conditions. The bail was ordered with a personal bond, sureties, a cash deposit, and compliance requirements.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused who played a limited role in a fraud but has prior similar convictions.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents under the IT Act preclude the exercise of discretion under Section 483 BNSS to grant bail.
Whether the applicant’s offer to deposit Rs 5,00,000 and the precedent of bail to a co‑accused justify regular bail in the present case.

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
criminal procedure
fraud
IT Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Section 483
history‑sheeter
regular bail

Judgment

1
47-BA-446-2026 (CR).DOC

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

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 446 OF 2026

Suraj Tatyaram Sayykar …... Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. …...Respondents

-----
Adv. Rohit Jain (Through VC) a/w Mr. Swapnil Pawar, Mr. Vikas Nagare,
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 seeking regular bail in

connection with Crime No.378/2025 registered with Rajarampuri Police

Station, District Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections

316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

alongwith Section 66(c), 66(d) and 43 of the Information and

Technology Act, 2000.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Rohit Jain appearing for the Applicant

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

as per the allegations in the charge-sheet, the Applicant is attributed only a

limited role of providing his bank account details. The fraudulent amount

Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
47-BA-446-2026 (CR).DOC

received from the complainant is shown to have been deposited in the

account of the present Applicant. However, the charge-sheet itself records

that the said amount was immediately transferred to the accounts of other

accused persons. The accused Sanket Nhavale, who is shown to have

received the amount from the account of the present Applicant, has already

been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 19/01/2026 passed in

Criminal Bail Application No.3635 of 2026. The Applicant is also ready to

show his bona fides by depositing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The

Applicant was arrested on 29/07/2025 and has remained in custody for

almost one year. The charge-sheet is already filed. The trial has not yet

commenced. There are several witnesses cited by the prosecution. The trial

will take its own time to conclude, 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 is a history-sheeter, having

been involved in an identical offence of cheating under the provisions of

the Information Technology Act by adopting the same modus operandi. It is

alleged that the Applicant used his bank account for receiving a fraudulent

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which was credited to his account from the

accounts of other accused persons. Though the amount is said to have been

again forwarded to accused Sanket Nhavale, however the role of the

present Applicant in committing the fraud, is clearly made out from the

overt act of the present Applicant. Since, the Applicant is having criminal

Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
47-BA-446-2026 (CR).DOC

antecedents, there is every likelihood, if the Applicant is released on bail,

he may again indulge into identical offence. Hence, this is not a fit case to

release the Applicant on bail therefore the application may be rejected.

5. I have gone through the investigations 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 attributed to the

present Applicant, even from the charge-sheet, is that he provided his bank

account for facilitating the deposit of the amount siphoned off from the

accounts of other accused persons, which was thereafter forwarded to the

account of accused Sanket Nhavale. Interestingly, accused Sanket Nhavale,

in whose account the amount was transferred by the Applicant, has already

been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 19/01/2026 passed in

Bail Application No.3635 of 2026. In that matter, the Applicant had shown

his bona fides by depositing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the trial Court.

Here also, the Applicant, Suraj Tatyaram Sayykar, is ready to show his bona

fides by voluntarily making a statement to deposit an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-. Since the Applicant is alleged to have played only a limited

role of providing the bank account wherein the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

was deposited, I am inclined to exercise discretion under Section 483 of

the BNSS to release the Applicant on bail.

ORDER

I. The Applicant - Suraj Tatyaram Sayykar, in connection with Crime

No.378/2025 registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, District

Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
47-BA-446-2026 (CR).DOC

Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4),

351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alongwith Section

66(c), 66(d) and 43 of the Information and 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 aforesaid order is subject to the Applicant depositing an

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- before the trial Court within a period of three

week from today.

B) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in

every two month from 10th date of month starting from 10th August, 2026.

C) The Applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he

shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.

D) 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.

E) Failure on the part of the Applicant of depositing the amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- before the trial Court within the stipulated time or a single

violation of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek

cancellation of the bail of the Applicant.

F) The Applicant, upon being released on bail, shall furnish his

residential address, contact number, and copies of his Aadhaar / PAN

Shantanu S. Dhudum
5
47-BA-446-2026 (CR).DOC

Cards 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.

II. 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…