DHANANJAY KASHINATH KHILLARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:8541
                                                                Bail Appln. No.46/2026
                                            :: 1 ::




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                             BAIL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2026


            Dhananjay Kashinath Khillari              … APPLICANT

                    VERSUS

            The State of Maharashtra & anr.           … RESPONDENTS

                                              .......
            Mr. A.S. Dhorde, Advocate for applicant
            Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for respondent – State
                                              ....…

                                    CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                    DATE     : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026

            PER COURT :


            1.          The applicant seeks release on regular bail in

            connection with Crime No.535/2025, registered with Loni Police

            Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under

            Sections 420, 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

            Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of

            Depositors (In Financial Institutions) Act, 1999.


            2.          The prosecution case is that, the informant lodged F.I.R.
                                                Bail Appln. No.46/2026
                              :: 2 ::


with an assertion that, he is engaged in construction business. He

came to be acquainted with Sau. Arti Pawar of Pune through his

business partner of the informant namely Girish Kakad. Thereafter,

Arti Pawar acquainted the informant and Girish Kakad with the

present applicant and thereafter there used to be business

discussions amongst them. It is averred that, in June 2018, Arti

Pawar demanded Rs.5 Lakhs from the informant and Girish Kakad

for investment with 30% per month return on the investment. The

present applicant also asked to invest in the trading business at

Pune. As there became friendly relations among the informant and

Girish Kakad on one hand and Arti Pawar and the present applicant

on the other, and due to business discussions, believing on them,

the informant and Girish Kakad deposited Rs.2,50,000/- and

Rs.2,00,000/- from the account of his wife to the account of Arti

Pawar on 8/6/2018 and Girish Kakad had deposited Rs.50,000/- in

the account of Arti Pawar. Thereafter the present applicant had

returned the deposit amount of Rs.5 Lakhs along with return of

Rs.1,30,000/- in cash.


3.         Thereafter, the applicant and Arti Pawar asked the

informant to invest Rs.1,20,00,000/- in their digital coins with an

assurance to pay 25% annual return. Therefore, the informant and
                                                    Bail Appln. No.46/2026
                                  :: 3 ::


Girish Kakad paid Rs.1,20,00,000/- to the applicant and Arti Pawar,

Lata Khillari, Alka Jaiswal in the Bank Accounts given by them from

time to time.       However, after expiry of the period, when the

informant demanded the invested amount, they started avoiding the

same and have not returned the amount invested by them.


4.             Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the

applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is

inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The investigation is complete

and charge sheet is filed.        There is no sufficient evidence to

connect the applicant with the alleged offence.          The applicant

worked for a short period as employee and was not having

authority to accept any deposit/ amount from the shareholders and

all the decisions regarding floating of various schemes were with

the Directors of the Company. There is no any specific overt act

attributed to the present applicant. As such, prayed to allow the

application.


5.             Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the

application, contending that, the offence is serious and huge

amount has been involved.


6.             Upon going through the FIR, it prima facie indicates the
                                                  Bail Appln. No.46/2026
                                :: 4 ::


informant specifically mentioned that the applicant under the false

promise of giving high rate of interest induced the informant to

invest their money with an assurance to pay 25% annual return and

later on, when the informant demanded the invested amount, not

returned the same.


7.         Prima facie, it appears that the applicant is partner of

the firm. As such, the applicant is responsible as contemplated in

Section 3 of the MPID Act. The present applicant has proactively

participated in the commission of offence, while siphoning the hard-

earned amounts deposited by the complainant.


8.         The essential ingredients of Section 409 of the IPC

offence are threefold:

     i) There must be entrustment of property or dominion over

     property by the accused;

     ii) The accused must be acting in the capacity of a banker,

     merchant, broker, attorney, or agent; and

     iii) There must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion

     of such property for his own use, or disposal of it in violation

     of the law or the contract governing such entrustment.


9.         The record prima facie indicates that the complainant
                                                     Bail Appln. No.46/2026
                                 :: 5 ::


entrusted his hard-earned money to the applicant and his

associates through the Bank. This entrustment was made based on

specific representations, resulting in a relationship that extended

beyond a mere commercial contract. The informant placed his

money in the custody of the applicant in a fiduciary capacity;

consequently, the applicant was under a legal obligation to ensure

the safety of the funds and to provide the promised returns on such

investments. Thus, the evidence unequivocally satisfies the

requirements for the offence of criminal breach of trust.


10.        The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Y.S. Jagan

Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI [(2013) 7 SCC 439], has held that

economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and the

massive diversion of public money stand on a different footing.

Such offences seriously affect the national economy and erode the

trust of the common man in financial systems.


11.        The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar

Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [(2024)13

SCC 788], held as under :-


        “22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of
        decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart
        and need to be visited with a different approach in the
        matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-
                                             Bail Appln. No.46/2026
                         :: 6 ::


rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offences affecting the economy of the country as
a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic
offences have serious repercussions on the development
of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in
this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation8, Nimmagadda Prasad vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation9, Gautam Kundu vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar and
Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai10. This
court taking a serious note with regard to the economic
offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and
Another11 as under:-

     “5… The entire community is aggrieved if the
     economic offenders who ruin the economy of the
     State are not brought to books. A murder may be
     committed in the heat of moment upon passions
     being aroused. An economic offence is committed
     with cool calculation and deliberate design with an
     eye on personal profit regardless of the
     consequence to the community. A disregard for the
     interest of the community can be manifested only
     at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the
     community in the system to administer justice in
     an even-handed manner without fear of criticism
     from the quarters which view white collar crimes
     with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
     done to the National Economy and National
     Interest…”


23. With the advancement of technology and
Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like
money laundering have become a real threat to the
functioning of the financial system of the country and
have become a great challenge for the investigating
agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature
of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved
therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be
                                                     Bail Appln. No.46/2026
                                  :: 7 ::


         undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no
         innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit
         escapes from the clutches of the law. When the
         detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the
         courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a
         reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy
         trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”


12.         In view of the aforesaid circumstances and considering

the material on record, the evidence prima facie establishes the

entrustment    of money,      its dishonest     misappropriation,     and

fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant at inception.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has

made out a strong prima facie case for the commission of an

offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code which is

punishable for 10 years or life, along with the fine.


13.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out

to grant bail to the applicant.


14.         Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.




                                      (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)




fmp/-