Bombay High Court
ANANDI ARJUN YADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicants subject to a Rs.30,000 personal bond, sureties, monthly police reporting and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses.
Summary
The High Court considered two bail applications arising from the same cyber‑fraud case in which the applicants were alleged to have hacked a bank account and withdrawn Rs.1,95,419. The offences were charged under Sections 319(2), 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The applicants had been in custody for more than eight months with no substantive progress in the trial, and they had deposited Rs.1,20,000 as a show of bonafide. The State highlighted the applicants' antecedents and the fact that the stolen money was transferred to their accounts. After hearing both sides, the Court noted the prolonged detention and lack of trial progress, and ordered that bail be granted on condition of a Rs.30,000 personal bond, sureties of equal amount, monthly police reporting, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses. The bail applications were therefore allowed and the matter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the IT Act despite the seriousness of the cyber‑fraud offences.
- Whether the applicants' antecedents and the transfer of the stolen amount to their accounts preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention without trial progress justifies bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 319(2), 3(5)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cybercrime
- hacking
- fraud
- Section 66D
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- pre‑trial detention
- surety
- criminal procedure
Judgment
67-BA-4559-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4559 OF 2025
Mithun Arjun Yadav … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH
SONALI
SATISH
Digitally signed
by SONALI
SATISH
KILAJE
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4520 OF 2025
Date:
KILAJE 2026.01.31
17:04:51
+0700
Anandi Arjun Yadhav … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, Advocate for the Applicants in both the Bail
Applications.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. These two bail applications are out of same crime, hence I am
deciding it by this common order.
2. By these applications, the Applicants are seeking regular bail in
C.R.No. 187 of 2024 registered with Bibvewadi Police Station, Pune, for
the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4) r/w. Section 3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS Act”) and Section 66D of
Page 1 of 3
67-BA-4559-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
Information Technology Act (“I.T.Act”), 2000.
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 20.07.2024, the applicants
hacked bank account information of wife of first informant and took out
amount of Rs.1,95,419/- from the said account.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the
applicants are behind bars for more than eight months. The applicants
were arrested in a similar matter previously and now arrested in present
matters. Investigation is completed. Chargesheet has been filed and
requested to allow the applications.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicants have
antecedents. The fraud amount in the present case was transferred in the
bank accounts of the applicants. It shows their involvement in the crime
and requested to reject the application.
5. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the
applicants have deposited Rs.1,20,000/- to show their bonafide before the
Trial Court.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet
and documents produced on record. The applicants are behind bars for
more than eight months. There is no progress in the trial. It may take time
to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
Page 2 of 3
67-BA-4559-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
ORDER
i. The applicants be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 187 of
2024 registered with Bibvewadi Police Station, Pune,
on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- each, on
furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. The applicants shall attend the Bibwevadi Police
Station once in a month on every Monday between
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till framing of charge.
iii. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or
attempt to influence or contact the complainant,
witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
6. The Bail Applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of.
7. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…