Bombay High Court
RAMESH NAVRANG YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court granted bail to all four accused subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard four bail applications (BA Nos. 3579/2025, 313/2026, 4074/2025, 4643/2025) filed by accused Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 who were charged with cheating and forgery in a Rs. 54 crore fixed‑deposit fraud alleged against the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Iron & Steel Market Committee. The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in forging deposit receipts and receiving large sums, while the accused contended that they were merely employees or business partners and had no direct benefit. The State argued that a prima facie case existed and that the principal accused was absconding, urging denial of bail. The court examined the material on record, noted the absence of any incriminating evidence against the four accused and the fact that the principal accused was at large, and therefore found the prima facie case against them weak. Consequently, the court granted bail to all four applicants subject to a detailed set of conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused persons charged with cheating and forgery in the fixed‑deposit fraud case.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficient to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the court are appropriate to ensure the accused's appearance and prevent tampering with evidence.
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- forgery
- fixed deposit fraud
- prima facie case
- Criminal Procedure Code
- conditions of bail
- high court order
Judgment
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3579 OF 2025
Shahanawaz Abdul Rasheed Khan .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2026
Amish Kumar Tribhuvan Srivastav .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4074 OF 2025
Nikunj Mahesh Joshi .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4643 OF 2025
Ramesh Navrang Yadav .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
....................
Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w. Mr. Sahil Ghorpade, Mr. Shivkumar S.
Bais, Mr. Madan Khansole, Mr. Surya P. Gupta i/b. G. G. Legal
Associates, Advocates, for the Applicant in B. A. No. 3579 of
2025.
Mr. Bhushan Mahadik a/w. Ms. Neha Sule i/b. Mahadik And
Associates, Advocates for Applicant in B. A. No. 313 of 2026.
Mr. Pradyumna D. Sharma a/w. Mr. Digvijay Kachare, Mr.
Gautam P. Khobragade, Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocates for
Applicant in B. A. No. 4074 of 2025.
Mr. Saugata Hazra a/w. Ms. Maitrayee Gadhave & Mr. Vaibhav
Gadekar, Advocates for Applicant in B. A. No. 4643 of 2025.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar and Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP's for the
Respondent - State.
1 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
Mr. Dinesh Adsule a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Bhole & Mr. Chinmay
Bhole, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 / Original Complainant
in B. A. No. 313 of 2026.
Mr. Ramishwar Parve, API, Crime Branch, Unit-III, Panvel, Navi
Mumbai present.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned APP for
the Respondent - State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.
2/Original Complainant B. A. No. 313 of 2026.
2. This is a group of four Bail Applications heard and decided
together in view of commonality of facts by this common order. In B.
A. No. 313 of 2026, the Applicant is Accused No. 11 duly represented
by Mr. Mahadik, Advocate. In B. A. No. 3579 of 2025, the Applicant is
Accused No. 9 duly represented by Mr. Gupta, Advocate. In B. A. No.
4074 of 2025, the Applicant is Accused No. 10 duly represented by Mr.
Sharma, Advocate. In B. A. No. 4643 of 2025, the Applicant is Accused
No. 8 duly represented by Mr. Hazra, Advocate. All of them have been
indicted in the same crime for cheating and forgery by virtue of an FIR
registered on 10.06.2024. Mr. Adsule, learned Advocate appears on
behalf of the Complainant in all 4 Bail Applications which is the
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Iron & Steel Market Committee (for
short "MMRISMC") which is the Semi Government Organization. The
2 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
prosecution team is led by Mr. Karmakar and Ms. Gotad. Briefly stated
according to the prosecution case, Accused No. 1 who is the principal
in the present case approached the office of the MMRISMC and
persuaded them to invest in fixed deposits of UCO Bank. It is not only
intriguing but highly surprising that between 01.06.2022 and
30.05.2024, the said MMRISMC invested a humongous amount of Rs.
54 Crores on the persuasion and request made by Accused No. 1 one
Mr. Suman Sharma claiming to be an officer of the UCO Bank. After
two years when it was revealed in the statutory audit that there was
some discrepancy regarding returns it was seen that there was no such
Bank as UCO Bank, where the deposits were made. In that view of the
matter, an FIR came to be registered on 10.06.2024 and investigation
was carried out. The investigation revealed that the fixed deposit
receipts given by Mr. Sharma to the MMRISMC were, in fact, forged,
fabricated and the monies which were taken by Mr. Sharma by way of
investments in fixed deposits and were in fact deposited in fictitious
accounts and the monies were siphoned off. Though it is informed and
apprised to the Court that for a period of two years, certain interest
was also received by the said MMRISMC on their investments, that
probably may have been the reason to lure the MMRISMC into making
more and more deposits so that confidence of the MMRISMC could be
gained. In the aforesaid facts, there are four Applicants before me who
are arraigned as Accused in the present crime. Mr. Mahadik, learned
3 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
Counsel very long represents Accused No. 11, who was working for a
very long period of its 27 years with the MMRISMC as its Executive
Officer. He would submit that he was not the signing authority and he
has never issued any cheque whatsoever to Mr. Suman Sharma for the
purpose of deposit. He would, in fact, apprise the Court that all
cheques which were issued to Mr. Suman Sharma for the contentious
period between 2022 and 2024 were issued by the Chairman and CEO
who have, in fact, not to be been arraigned as Accused persons rather
they find themselves to be into the shoes of the Complainant. He
would submit that the prosecution has filed three Charge-sheets
pursuant to investigation and Accused No. 11 finds his name having
been reflected in the third Charge-sheet on the ground that he was a
privy to what had transpired regarding the investments made. Insofar
as Accused No. 9 is concerned, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel would
submit that save and except the fact that Accused No.9 was having a
rubber stamp manufacturing shop, there is nothing amiss qua his role
in the present crime. He would submit that according to the
prosecution case, he has been charged with replication of a receipt
given to him by one of his friends, who is arraigned as Accused No. 8
and represented by Mr. Hazra. He would submit that, that apart,
according to the prosecution, Accused No. 9 has received Rs.1.59/-
lacs, as the alleged proceeds of crime but according to his explanation,
this amount is received over a substantial period of time intermittently
4 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
from Accused No. 8 in view of his business relationship with Accused
No. 8. Insofar as Accused No. 8 is concerned, represented by Mr.
Hazra, case of the prosecution is that Accused No. 8 has received an
amount of Rs. 12.75/- lacs in his account from the principal Accused
No. 1. According to Mr. Hazra, this amount was friendly loan given to
him by Accused No. 1 and beyond that he would not be in a position to
say anything. Insofar as Accused No. 10 is concerned duly represented
by Mr. Sharma, he would submit that he is a businessman and into
trading business. He would submit that the case of the prosecution qua
him is about he having received Rs. 14 Crores in his account. However,
he has sought to give an explanation to the same for it to be a loan
having procured by him from some NBFC and papers to that effect are
placed on record. However, he would further inform the Court that
even according to the prosecution, this amount of Rs. 14 Crores which
was received by him in his never account was paid over further to
Accused No. 1 and was never retained by him save and except an
amount of Rs.63/ lacs which was withdrawn by him from the said
account. That apart, the prosecution wad has also alleged that Accused
No. 10 had signed rather was the signatory of some fixed deposit
receipt.
3. Insofar as the case of the Complainant is concerned, Mr.
Adsule has very forcefully persuaded me to not grant bail to the
Applicants and stated that in the event if the Court is ready to grant
5 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
bail to the Applicants, the Applicants be put to terms & conditions qua
the monies they have received and they be asked to deposit amounts to
show their bonafides. Mr. Adsule would submit that insofar as Accused
No. 11 is concerned, he was the Executive Officer and working in the
office of the MMRISMC and was having full knowledge visit about all
persons who used to visit the office of the MMRISMC for work. He
would go to the extent of stating that Accused No. 11 was hand in
glove and in collusion with the principal Accused No. 1 - Mr. Suman
Sharma. However, he would submit that insofar as Accused No. 11 is
concerned, it is not shown by the prosecution case that he was a
beneficiary. In support of his above submissions, he would refer to and
rely upon the Affidavit-in-reply dated 16.03.2026 filed by the
Interveners. With regard to Accused Nos. 8, 9 & 10, he would submit
that their role as per the prosecution case was involvement in forgery
and in giving the cheques which were involved and receiving different
amounts in their Bank accounts. He would, therefore, persuade the
Court to consider putting conditions to the Applicants.
4. Learned prosecutors Mr. Karmakar and Ms. Gotad, who
would adopt the submissions made by Mr. Adsule and would submit
that a large scale fraud has been played on MMRISMC to the extent of
Rs.54 Crores and therefore, this Court should be cautious before
releasing any of the Accused persons on bail, since a prima facie has
been made out against them. I have considered the submissions
6 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
advanced by learned Counsel at the bar and perused the record of the
case with their able assistance.
5. Prima facie, I find that insofar as the principal Accused No. 1
Mr. Suman Sharma is concerned, he is absconding. The prosecution is
not in a position to show as to where the end tracing of the funds of
Rs. 54 Crores received by Mr. Suman Sharma has ultimately been
received and by which of the Accused persons. The peripheral role of
Accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 in the present case, prima facie, enables me
to consider their case for grant of bail. Insofar as Accused No. 11 is
concerned, he has made out a very strong case for grant of bail in view
of the fact that save and except, he having proximity of being an
employee of the MMRISMC, there is nothing incriminating which has
been shown by the prosecution or he having been shown as a
beneficiary. Mr. Suman Sharma the principal protagonist is not in jail
but he is released.
6. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to grant bail at this
prima facie stage to all four Accused persons before me as I am
convinced by the submissions made by their respective Advocates.
7. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
finding, Bail Applications of the 4 Applicants before me are allowed
subject to the following terms and conditions:-
7 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
(i) The Applicant - Shahanawaz Abdul Rasheed
Khan is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C. R. No. 206 of 2024 registered
with Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, upon
furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024;
(ii) The Applicant - Amish Kumar Tribhuvan
Srivastav is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C. R. No. 206 of 2024 registered
with Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, upon
furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024;
(iii) The Applicant - Nikunj Mahesh Joshi is directed
to be released on bail in connection with C. R.
No. 206 of 2024 registered with Kalamboli Police
Station, Raigad, upon furnishing a P. R. Bond in
8 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of
2024;
(iv) The Applicant - Ramesh Navrang Yadav is
directed to be released on bail in connection with
C. R. No. 206 of 2024 registered with Kalamboli
Police Station, Raigad, upon furnishing a P. R.
Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of
2024;
(v) The Applicants shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case to
dissuade that person from disclosing the facts to
the Court or any police officer and shall not
tamper with evidence;
(vi) The Applicants shall, within three (3) days of
their release from jail, provide to the
9 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
Investigating Officer, Kalamboli Police Station,
Raigad, their residential addresses, contact
numbers, e-mails and must inform the
Investigating Officer about any change in the
same from time to time;
(vii) The Applicants shall surrender their passports to
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Panvel, in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024 within three
days of their release from jail;
(viii)The Applicants shall report to the Investigating
Officer, Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad on the
2nd and 4th Saturday of each month from 11.00
am to 12.00 noon till conclusion of trial in
R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024;
(ix) The Applicants shall regularly appear before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in
R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024 as and when the matter is
fixed, unless specifically exempted;
(x) If the Applicants abstain from appearing before
the Trial Court, then the same would be
considered as a breach of Court conditions and
the Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate
10 of 11
12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc
orders;
(xi) The Applicants shall not leave India without prior
permission from the Court.
8. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the
strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
9. All four Bail Applications, being B. A. No. 3579 of 2025, B. A.
No. 313 of 2026, B. A. No. 4074 of 2025 and B. A. No. 4643 of 2025
are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Anand [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.04
17:52:46 +0530
11 of 11
Checking your session…