Bombay High Court
SUBHRANSH NAYAKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant on the condition of a personal bond and sureties.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Subhransh Nayak, accused in a fraud case involving alleged cheating of investors amounting to Rs.1,22,28,031 and charges under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34, IT Act section 66-D and MPID Act sections 3 and 4. The prosecution argued that the applicant was part of a conspiracy that defrauded 72 persons and posed a risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses, while the applicant contended false implication, highlighted that co‑accused had already been released on bail, and deposited Rs.13 lakhs to demonstrate bona fides. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over 18 months with no trial progress. Weighing the parity argument, the deposit, and the lack of prior criminal record, the court granted bail with a personal bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties, imposing conditions against evidence tampering and witness influence. The trial court was directed to continue the trial on its merits without being influenced by this order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the fraud charges and alleged risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses
- Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused already released on bail warrants granting bail to the applicant
- Whether the applicant’s deposit of Rs.13 lakhs demonstrates sufficient bona fides to merit bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66-D
Subjects
- bail
- fraud
- IPC
- IT Act
- MPID Act
- criminal procedure
- parity
- surety
- personal bond
Judgment
902-BA-929-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.929 OF 2025
Subhransh Nayak … Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent
NILAM
Digitally signed
by NILAM
SANTOSH
________________________________________________________
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.01.20
11:31:06 +0530 Mr.Souman K. Pathan, for the Applicant.
Mr.B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :
. By this Application, Applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No.1111 of 2024 registered with Wakad Police Station, Pune,
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471
and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’
for short), Sections 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000
(‘IT Act’ for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2000 (‘MPID’
for short).
Page 1 of 4
902-BA-929-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
2. It is prosecution’s case that, the Applicant and co-accused in
conspiracy lured and persuaded the First Informant to invest money in
their company with promise of handsome returns, after investing
amount, no money of First Informant and Investors were returned nor
returns were given on it.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The main allegations
are against the co-accused. The co-accused has been released on bail.
Hence, the Applicant is entitled for bail on principle of parity. The
learned counsel further submitted that as per prosecution’s case, the
amount of Rs.13 lakhs was transferred in bank account of the
Applicant. To show his bona fide, the Applicant has deposited Rs.13
lakhs before the Trial Court. The Applicant has no antecedents and
requested to allow the Application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that there is fraud of
Rs.1,22,28,031/-. The Applicant and co-accused cheated the First
Informant and other Investors. The Applicant and co-accused had
cheated the other 72 persons. If Applicant released on bail he may
Page 2 of 4
902-BA-929-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject
the Application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record.
6. The Applicant is behind bars for more than 1 year and six
months. There is no progress in the trial. To show bona fide, the
Applicant has deposited Rs.13 lakhs before the Trial Court.
7. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that,
the Applicant has no objection for withdrawal of deposited amount, by
concerned Investors by filing appropriate Application before the Trial
Court without admitting guilt of the Applicant. There is no progress in
trial.
8. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applicant-Subhransh Nayak be released on
bail in Crime No.1111 of 2024 registered with Wakad
Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/-
with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.
Page 3 of 4
902-BA-929-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.
(iv) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when required.
(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…