Bombay High Court
ASMITA SUNIL PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that, having verified substantial refunds and the applicant's cooperation, bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 was warranted.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed by Ms. Asmita Sunil Patil under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466 of the IPC, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance, 2019. The applicant had been in custody for over one year and ten months, during which she claimed to have refunded about 75% of the Rs.1.55 crore collected from 35 depositors, with the prosecution’s report confirming that only Rs.94.10 lakh remained outstanding. The court examined the veracity of these refunds, the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation, and the lack of necessity for continued detention. Finding the applicant’s conduct bona‑fide and the pending amount modest, the court concluded that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, surety, reporting requirements, and other standard conditions, with the order limited to bail and not addressing the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving IPC fraud offences and deposit‑scheme violations.
- Whether the applicant’s continued custody is necessary in view of her cooperation, the substantial refund of monies, and the pending trial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 406, 420, 465, 466
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- IPC fraud
- deposit fraud
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act
- Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance
- cooperation with investigation
- refund of monies
Judgment
18.BA.774.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.774 OF 2025
Asmita Sunil Patil .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Naushad Ahmed a/w. Mr. Adnan Khan, Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent.
PSI – G. S. Shaikh, EOW, Raigad – Alibag.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Newton, learned APP for Respondent.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R.
No.225 of 2024 registered with Alibag Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860; Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest
of Depositors Act, 1999; Sections 3, 4, 5, 21, 22 and 23 of the Banning
of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance, 2019.
3. On 24.08.2026, after hearing Mr. Ahmed, following order
was passed:-
“1. Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
1 of 5
18.BA.774.2025.doc
Newton, learned APP for State.
2. Mr. Ahmed would submit that Applicant is in incarceration since
13.11.2024 in an offence registered under Sections 406, 420, 465 &
455 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection
of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. He would submit that total outlay
of funds attributed to the Applicant is approximately 1.55 Crore
having been collected from more that 35 depositors. He would also in
the same breath submit that according to his instructions 75% of the
funds have already been refunded and returned back to the depositors
and transactions to that effect are already there on record. He would
submit that Applicant has cooperated with the prosecution fully and
therefore he being in incarceration for more that 1 year and 10
months be considered by Court for his enlargement on bail. He would
submit that there are two accused persons out of whom one has
already secured anticipatory bail. Hence he would submit that no
purpose will be served by keeping the present Applicant behind bars
considering the ignominy suffered and the trial not even commenced.
3. Learned APP is directed to prepare an appropriate report with
regard to ascertaining the veracity of the aforesaid submissions made
regarding return of monies to depositors and accordingly apprise the
Court as to whether monies have been refunded to the depositors or
otherwise. If it is found that the aforesaid statement is true and
correct, this Court will consider the present Application.
4. Stand over to 27th August, 2026 under the caption “First on
Board”.”
4. Today, Ms. Newton , learned APP on taking instructions has
placed before the Court a chart which is taken on record and marked
‘X’ for identification. This is a chart prepared by the prosecution
pursuant to the aforesaid directions which has been prepared by the
prosecution with regard to the ascertainment of legality and veracity of
the statements which are recorded in the aforesaid order. It is prima
facie seen that substantial amounts have already been returned to the
Investors by the Applicant.
5. In some cases, entire amount has been returned. In many
cases, very little amount has remained pending. The total outstanding
amount which has remained pending as informed by Ms. Newton
2 of 5
18.BA.774.2025.doc
according to prosecution’s own record contained in police report dated
27.08.2026 which is placed before me is approximately Rs.94,10,500/-
out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.3.63 Crores. Ms. Newton
also confirms the fact that aforesaid amount of Rs.94,10,500/- is the
alleged proceeds of crime which was infact received which is
outstanding from the Applicant whereas amount which is less returned
is Rs.1.19 Crores. Considering the bonafides shown by Applicant it will
be worthwhile if he is released on bail because once he is out on bail,
he will be in a much better position to accumulate and return the
balance amount and repay the same.
6. There are total 29 Investors who have complained about
investments having been made with the Applicant with the hope of
getting high returns. Most of the Investors have already been
substantially paid their amount as reflected in the report placed before
me.
7. Applicant is incarcerated for more than one year and ten
months. He has disclosed all details to the prosecution and therefore
his custody in my opinion in such facts and circumstances is no longer
required.
8. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail subject to following conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
3 of 5
18.BA.774.2025.doc
prison in connection with Crime No. 225 of 2024;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
concerned Police Station, twice every month on the first
and third Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if she does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of her current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
4 of 5
18.BA.774.2025.doc
9. 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.
10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.27
15:21:02 +0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…