MANOJ KUMAR SHREERAM PODDARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

P.H. JAYANI                                          910 BA3726.2025.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3726 OF 2025
                                                       …. Applicant
Kartik Ravikumar @ R Kartik @ Kishor
Sriniwasan
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent

                             WITH
              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2026
                               IN
                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3726 OF 2025
Mr. Manoj Kumar Shreeram Poddar                        .… Complainant
In the matter between :-
                                                          …. Applicant
Kartik Ravikumar @ R Kartik @ Kishor
Sriniwasan
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                 …Respondent


Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w. Mr. Anish Pereira, Mr. Aryan Kotwal and
Mr. Rafi Babu for the Applicant.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Hitendra Parab for the Complainant/first informant.
Mr. S.S. Kadam, PSI, DCB, CID (AEC), present.


                          CORAM:       SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                          DATED :      17th JULY, 2026

1.       Heard Mr. Sayed, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr.
Chate, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Mr. Parab,
learned Counsel for the Complainant/first informant.

2.       The Applicant arraigned in an FIR bearing C.R. No.52/2022
registered with DCB, CID, Anti Extortion Cell Unit, Mumbai
(initially registered as FIR No.10/2022 with Ghatkopar Police
Station, Mumbai) for the offence punishable under Sections 406,

                              Page 1 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                           910 BA3726.2025.DOC



409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, on the Report dated 06/01/2022 filed by the first
informant - Mr. Manojkumar Shriram Poddar, seeks his release on
bail as the trial Court and the Sessions Court denied him bail.

3.       The prosecution case is that between August, 2021 to
03/09/2021, Shri. Sameer Bhatia @ Kamlesh Manoharlal Kanal
and his partner Smt. Sheetal Taru gave an allurement to the
informant that they will get him Rs.20 Crores loan at lesser
interest rate form Mr. Khalil Marakar @ Satvik Chandrashekhar,
Mr. Satish Shriram @ Mohammed Dawood Khan and Mr. Vikky
Durairaj. Further, Mr. Khalil Marakar @ Satvik Chandrashekhar,
Mr. Satish Shriram @ Mohammed Dawood Khan and Applicant –
Kartik Ravikumar induced the informant to give them two
demand draft of total Rs.96,00,000/- towards payment of
advance interest and Rs.2,00,000/- as misc. charges. Despite
payment of said amounts, no loan was given to the informant. The
amount paid in advance was diverted to other accounts and then
withdrawn by the accused persons. For this purpose, certain
accused persons gave their fake names and address/es to hide
their identity. Thus, the informant was cheated and the money
paid by him in advance was misappropriated. Accordingly, the
aforesaid crime came to be registered. Investigation revealed the
complicity of the Applicant in the crime. Therefore, the Applicant
and certain other accused persons came to be arrested from time
to time. There are some wanted accused. On completion of
investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet as well as
supplementary charge-sheet.

4.       Mr. Sayed, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
there is no evidence to show that the Applicant was controlling the


                               Page 2 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                             910 BA3726.2025.DOC



fraudulent bank account and the ill-gotten money. As alleged, the
Applicant has received total Rs.50 Lakhs out of the fraud amount.
On instructions, he submitted that, the Applicant has voluntarily
paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the Complainant to show his bonafide and the
Applicant will pay additional Rs.10 lakhs within six months from
the date of his release from jail, i.e., Rs.5 Lakhs within three
months from the date of his release and Rs. 5 Lakhs within next
three months, towards part refund of the informant’s money, but
without prejudice to the Applicant’s rights, contentions and
defense to be raised before the trial court, or in any proceedings
arising out of the said crime. The said statement is accepted as an
undertaking to this Court. Mr. Sayed, on instructions, submitted
that out of the other 15 cases, in 14 cases, the Applicant is on bail.
His assisting Advocate has provided copies of eight bail orders to
the learned APP and states that he will provide copies of
remaining bail orders at the earliest. The said statement is
accepted.

5.       Mr. Chate, the learned APP submitted that, in the present
crime, the Applicant used to control the wrongfully gained money
and bank accounts in which such money used to be deposited. The
Applicant and the co-accused had changed their names and
identity to cheat the informant. In a similar manner, the Applicant
and the co-accused persons have cheated several other persons. In
all, 16 different crimes have been registered against the Applicant
and the co-accused in different States. The Applicant is a habitual
offender. The Applicant is not a permanent resident of the given
address. He is likely to abscond. Therefore, bail may be refused.

6.            I have considered the rival submissions. Although it is
alleged that the Applicant was controlling the fraudulent bank
accounts and the money credited in it, said allegation is mainly
                                 Page 3 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                                      910 BA3726.2025.DOC



based on the information given by the accused to the police during
the investigation. The co-accused have been granted bail. Some
accused persons have paid certain amount to the Informant.
Therefore, Mr. Parab, the learned Counsel for the Intervenor, on
instructions, gave no-objection to release him on bail. The
Applicant is ready to pay Rs.10 lakhs as noted above. Except one,
the Applicant is on bail in the other cases. Mr. Sayed submitted
that the Applicant requests to expedite the trial and he undertakes
to attend before the trial. Therefore, bail, as prayed, may be
granted.
         Mr. Parab, the learned Counsel for the Intervenor, on
instructions,        stated   that      the        Intervenor   has   received
Rs.10,00,000/- from the Applicant and since the Applicant will
pay additional Rs.10 lakhs, the Intervenor has no objection to
release the Applicant on bail.

7.            In view thereof, I am inclined to allow the Application.
Hence, following Order :-

(i)      The Applicant – Kartik Ravikumar @ R Kartik @ Kishor
Sriniwasan be released on bail in aforeaid FIR bearing
No.52/2022 registered with DCB, CID, Anti Extortion Cell Unit,
Mumbai (initially registered as FIR No.10/2022 with Ghatkopar
Police Station, Mumbai) on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one or more local sureties in the like amount.

(ii)     The Applicant – Kartik Ravikumar @ R Kartik @ Kishor
Sriniwasan shall pay Rs.10,00,000/- directly to the Complainant,
as stated above, i.e., Rs. 5 Lakhs within three months from the
date of his release, and the remaining Rs. 5 Lakhs within next
three months, towards part refund of the amount allegedly
received by the Applicant.

                                     Page 4 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                            910 BA3726.2025.DOC



         Said payment shall not be construed to mean an admission
of guilt by the Applicant.

         Said payment shall be without prejudice to the rights,
contentions and the defence to be raised by the Applicant and the
Intervenor in the case before the trial Court or any proceedings
arising out of the said crime.

(iii)    The Applicant shall mark his attendance at DCB, CID, Anti
Extortion Cell Unit, Mumbai on 1 st day of each calender month
between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

(iv)     The trial Court is requested to expedite the case. The
Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the
jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court, for the
reasons to be recorded in writing.

(v)      The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the
prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him.

(vi)     The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the trial Court.

(vii) On being released from jail, the Applicant shall furnish his
contact number and residential address to the Investigating
Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

(viii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the
observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of
determination to the entitlement for bail and they may not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of




                                 Page 5 of 6
                       P.H. JAYANI                                             910 BA3726.2025.DOC



                       the Applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of
                       the observations made hereinabove.

                       8.       Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

                       9.       Interim Application stands disposed of in view of disposal of
                       the Bail Application.



          Digitally
          signed by

WAKLE
          WAKLE
          MANOJ                                         (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
MANOJ     JANARDHAN
JANARDHAN Date:
          2026.07.18
          14:17:14
          +0530




                                                       Page 6 of 6