High Court
Facts
1BA616&679.2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 616 OF 2025SUHAS PANDIT CHAVANVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA…WITH…BAIL APPLICATION NO. 679 OF 2025RAJENDRA @ PANKAJ PRALHAD JADHAVVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2161 OF 2025 IN BA/616/2025RAJENDRA SUNDARLAL JADHAVVERSUSSUHAS PANDIT CHAVAN AND ANOTHER…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2223 OF 2025 IN BA/679/2025PRAMOD PANDIT JADHAVVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…
Legal Reasoning
14BA616&679.2025victims of the scam have also to be factored in.27.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds...”15]Applying the law as noted in above Judgmentsof the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering thedocuments as is available on record and that prima facie itcan be seen that the amounts were taken by accused no.3 -Suhas Pandit Chavan and accused no.1 - Sachin @ SantoshRathod and there is no evidence that the amounts wereinvested.The present transactions cannot be said to be apart of the earlier transactions for which Accused No.1 –Sachin @ Santosh Rathod was prosecuted and wouldconstitute a distinct offence. The offences as alleged areprima-facie made out and the involvement of accused no.3– Suhas Chavan is clearly seen.16]It is to be seen that, although, the law on grantof bail in economic offence as discussed above is stringentand that the investigation in the matter is complete and atthe instance of the applicant i.e. Rajendra @ Pankaj Jadhav,who is relative of the complainant, the investment is made.Accused No.3 - Suhas Chavan is stated to be the part of theteam of Accused No.1 - Sachin @ Santosh Rathod. The mainaccused (Schin @ Santosh Rathod) is absconding andincidentally he is also acquitted in connected offence ofsimilar nature. Suhas Chavan is alleged to be the member of
Arguments
2BA616&679.2025WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2224 OF 2025 IN BA/616/2025PRAMOD PANDIT JADHAVVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant in BA/616/2025 : Mr. V. D. Sapkal,Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Satej S. Jadhav a/w. Mr. Y. A.JadhavAdvocate for Applicant in BA/679/2025 : Mr. Jadhav Satej S.APP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. P. DawalkarAdvocate for Applicant / Assist to PP in Criminal ApplicationNo./2161/2025 : Mr. Mohit R. DeshmukhAdvocate for Applicant / Assist to PP in Criminal ApplicationsNo./2223/2025 & 2224/2025: Mr. Prakash BhaushaebShirsath...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :14.07.2025ORDER : 1]Criminal Applications No.2161 of 2025, 2223 of2025 and 2224 of 2025 stand allowed to the extent of assistto public prosecutor.2]Heard learned counsel for the applicants, thelearned APP for the respondent-State and the learnedcounsel for the assist to public prosecutor. 3BA616&679.20253]The applicants are seeking bail as they werearrested on 27.11.2024 in connection with CrimeNo.0213/2024, dated 27.11.2024, registered withOsmanpura Police Station, District ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B r/w. 34 of the IPC & underSections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. 4]The accused number/s mentioned hereinafterare as per the FIR. 5]The case against the applicant as put up by theprosecution is that Accused No.2 / Rajendra @ PankajJadhav, relative of the informant had introduced one Sachin@ Santosh Rathod / Accused No.1 to the informant andalso gave information about the 30:30 scheme run bySachin @ Santosh Rathod (Accused No.1) and his teammembers (Suhas Pandit Chavan and other accused). It isalleged that Accused No.2 informed the complainant thatthey are running business in the name of PrachiMultiservices and Construction. It was stated that theamount invested in the said scheme will be invested in realestate, sale and purchase of the land and that many personshave invested money with them and has got 15% benefiteach month. Relying upon the assurance given by AccusedNo.1 and Accused No.2, the informant invested the amountof Rs.10,00,000/- in the scheme on 13.11.2020 and got 4BA616&679.2025some desired benefits. Thereafter, the informant againinvested an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, however, they didnot get the returns. It is stated that the informant’s cousinbrother namely Rajendra Sundarlal Jadhav on similarassurance given by the accused has also invested an amountof Rs.95,00,000/- and no returns were given as assured, assuch, the present FIR is filed.6]While the scheme is run by Accused No.1 /Sachin @ Santosh Rathod, the people from the vicinitynamely Suhas Chavan, who is the applicant in bailapplication no.616/2025, are part of the team running thescheme. Accused No.2 / Rajendra @ Pankaj Jadhav beingthe relative of the informant having trusted him (AccusedNo.2) and the team leader Sachin @ Santosh Rathod hasintroduced the co-accused to the informant. It is stated thatthe informant had invested the total amount ofRs.50,00,000/- and his cousin brother namely RajendraSundarlal Jadhav invested an amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/-with the accused and, accordingly, the FIR is registered.After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is filedin the matter and, thereafter, this bail application is filed.Accused No.2 – Rajendra @ Pankaj Jadhav andAccused No.3 – Suhas Chavan are arrested on 27.11.2024.7]The submissions of the learned Senior Advocatefor the applicant in BA/616/2025 was recorded by this 5BA616&679.2025court, on 18.06.2025, as under:“2.The learned Senior Advocate for theapplicant submits that in an identical fact situationwhere allegations were made that the applicant tookmoney from various investors by running a particularscheme statements of large number of investors wererecorded and the applicant was charged for theoffence and, thereafter, the court has acquitted theapplicant. Large number of people had alleged thatthey were cheated at the instance of the main accusedSantosh Rathod. He submits that wide publicationwas given to the case and that various people wereallegedly cheated had given their statements and afterinvestigation and the trial the main accused wasacquitted. Now, a fresh case is sought to be madeagainst the present applicant on identical factsituation, although, on the very fact that the mainaccused was granted acquittal. He also points out thatin the earlier case certain accused were abscondingbut later on this court granted bail to them. The trialcourt had held that there is no scheme run by themain accused as alleged.3.The learned Senior Advocate furthersubmits that, in any event, the offence for which theapplicant is charged is punishable with maximumsentence of 7 years and he is in custody from27.11.2022 and seek bail by relying upon thefollowing Judgments:“1.Sanjay Chadra Vs. CBI, AIR 2012SC 8302.P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorateof Enforcement, AIR 2020 SC 16993.Manish Sisodia Vs. CentralBureau of Investigation, 2023 (4)Bom.CR(Cri.) 7024.Surinder Singh Vs. State ofPunjab, AIR 2005 SC 36695.Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CentralBureau of Investigation and another,(2022) 10 SCC 516.Vipul Chitalia s/o. ChunilalChitalia Vs. CBI and another, 2022 6BA616&679.2025DGLS (Bom.)44167.Avinash Nivritti Bhosale s/o LateNivritti Ganpati Bhosale Vs. CentralBureau of Investigation and another,Bail Application No.2383 of 2023, dated17.05.20248.Gajanan Vitthal Koparde Vs. TheState of Maharashtra, Criminal BailApplication No.1145 of 2024, dated02.07.20249.Krishna Damani Vs. State of WestBengal SLP (Cri.) 6954/2024, dated27.05.2024”8]In response to the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the applicants, the learned APP and thelearned counsel for Assist to Public Prosecutor submits thatthe applicants were not the accused in the previous offence.The offence is grave and against the society and is aneconomic offence and the money was invested at theinstance of the present applicants. 9]The learned counsel for the assist to publicprosecutor has referred to statement dated 02.12.2024 ofRajendra Sundarlal Jadhav, who is the cousin brother of theinformant. He has also points out the charts (reproducedbelow) showing the investment made by the investorRajendra Sundarlal Jadhav and submitted that initiallysome returns were given only to induce him for furtherinvestments and were finally duped of large amounts. Thelearned counsel submits that this is purely ponzi schemeand that there is no investment in any property at any pointof time by the accused. 7BA616&679.2025अ.क्र. दि(cid:4)नांक गुंतवलेलीरक्कमखातेधारक0108/02/20212500000 राजेंद्रजाधवयांचे एचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50200051046802वरून आरोपीसुहास चव्हाणआयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक145501001179 मध्ये0208/02/20213000000 पत्नीलताराजेंद्रजाधव यांचेएचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50100316105337 वरून आरोपीसुहास चव्हाणआयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक145501001179 मध्ये0309/02/20212500000 मुलगीदि*यांकाराजेंद्रजाधव यांचेएचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50100333917395 वरून आरोपीसुहास चव्हाणआयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक145501001179 मध्ये03 एकूण8000000 ऐंशी लाखरु./-अ.क्र. दि(cid:4)नांक गुंतवलेलीरक्कमखातेधारक0130/03/20213500000 राजेंद्रजाधवयांचे एचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50200051046802वरून आरोपीसुहास चव्हाणआयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक145501001179 मध्ये0230/03/20213500000 पत्नीलताराजेंद्रजाधव यांचेएचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50100316105337 वरून आरोपीसुहास चव्हाणआयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक145501001179 मध्ये0330/03/20212500000 मुलगीदि*यांकाराजेंद्रजाधव यांचेएचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50100333917395 वरून आरोपीसुहास चव्हाणआयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक14550100 8BA616&679.20251179 मध्ये03 एकूण9500000/- रुपयेअ.क्र. दि(cid:4)नांक गुंतवलेलीरक्कमखातेधारक0116/06/20212020000 मुलगीदि*यांकाराजेंद्रजाधव यांचेएचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50100333917395 वरून आरोपीसडिचनउफ0 संतोषनाम(cid:4)ेव राठो(cid:28)आयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक145505002368 मध्ये0216/06/20213000000 पुतण्या*ीतमरमेशजाधव यांचेएचडि(cid:28)एफसीखातेक्रमांक50100396876334 वरून आरोपीसडिचनउफ0 संतोषनाम(cid:4)ेव राठो(cid:28)आयसीआयसीआय बँकखातेक्रमांक145505002368 मध्ये03 एकूण5020000/- रुपये10]As regards the Judgment in the case of TheState of Maharashtra Vs. Scahin @ Santosh NamdeoRathod, Special Case No.81/2022, dated 03.11.2023, thepresent transactions are not part of that case and that thecourt at paragraph no.4 has determined the points forconsideration, as under:“(4) ...Following points arise for determination and they are giventogether with findings thereon for the reasons stated below:-Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS1.Does the prosecution prove that, in between22.1.2021 to 21.02.2022 within the area ofBidkin, Tal. Paithan, District Aurangabad theaccused along with absconding accused infurtherance of common intention cheated 9BA616&679.202512 Judgment- Spl. Case No. 81/2022P.W. No.1 and other investors by dishonestlyinducing them to invest money in his financialestablishment namely Kalannam Multiservicesunder the scheme namely 30-30 and therebycommitted an offence punishable underSection 420 read with 34 of Indian PenalCode ? .. No.2.Does the prosecution prove that, duringaforesaid period and place the accused alongwith absconding accused in furtherance ofcommon intention entrusted were with hugemoney invested by various investors in hisabove mentioned financial establishment andhe converted the same to his own use bycommitting criminal breach of trust andthereby committed an offence punishableunder Section 406 read with 34 of Indian PenalCode ? ..No.3.Does the prosecution prove that, duringaforesaid period and place the accused alongwith absconding accused being promoters ofabove named financial establishment wereresponsible for management and business ofthat financial establishment, fraudulentlydefaulted repayment of deposit on maturityalongwith benefit in form of interest andthereby committed an offence punishableunder Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection ofInterest of Depositors (In FinancialEstablishment) Act 1999 ?.. No.4.What order ? …. The accused isacquitted.”11]In paragraph no.18 of the Judgment hasobserve as under:“(18) Therefore, it is held that, the investigationcarried out by these three investigating officers is notsufficient and reliable to bring home guilt of theaccused for alleged offences. Though, it is case ofprosecution that, there is cheating and criminalbreach of trust of huge amount of Rs.68,12,49,000/-but there is no any single document to prove that, the 10BA616&679.2025accused was head of that financial establishment orhe lured people to invest in his financialestablishment. It is also not alleged by theprosecution that, the accused had prepared bogus,forged and fabricated documents about financialestablishment. The case of the prosecution solelyrelied on oral evidence of investors and they have notsupported their case at the time of giving evidence.”Thus, from the above, the learned counselsubmits that in the facts of that case the prosecution wasnot able to establish that the amounts were handed over bythe investors to the accused. It is noticed that there was noevidence that the accused had induced them to investmoney and committed offence. 12]However, in the instant case, the learnedcounsel for the assist to public prosecutor submits that thereis clear allegation that the document made in the name ofRBI is a fabricated and fraudulent document. The saiddocument was shown to them and to give them assurancethat the accused are going to get the money of Rs.300 to350 crores for the scheme from the Government and on thatbasis the complainants were induced to part with furtheramounts and the amounts are duped.13]Considered the rival submissions, perused thedocuments on record, so also, the Judgment in the case ofThe State of Maharashtra Vs. Scahin @ Santosh NamdeoRathod, Special Case No.81/2022, dated 03.11.2023, the 11BA616&679.2025present transactions are not part of the transactions in theabove referred case. The Judgment delivered therein ispurely on technical aspects that the prosecution has failedto establish that the accused therein i.e. Sachin @ SantoshNamdeo Rathod had created 30:30 scheme and he was thehead of the scheme and duped the investors.However, in the instant case, the presenttransactions are not part of the earlier case. The document,which is shown as the letter from the RBI to inspireconfidence of the investors is also alleged to be a fraudulentdocument. The agreement is also placed on record betweenSachin @ Santosh Rathod and Suhas Chavan on one sideand the investor Rajendra Sundarlal Jadhav on the otherside. Certain documentary evidences are also produced. Theoffence involved is economic offence. The law as regardsgrant of bail in economic offences is discussed in the belownoted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’bleSupreme Court, in para 22 and 23 of the judgmentdelivered in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement, reported in AIR 2024 SC(Criminal) 217 has observed as under :-“22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena ofdecisions, the economic offences constitute a classapart and need to be visited with a different approachin the matter of bail. The economic offences havingdeep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss ofpublic funds need to be viewed seriously andconsidered as grave offences affecting the economy ofthe country as a whole and thereby posing seriousthreat to the financial health of the country. 12BA616&679.2025Undoubtedly, economic offences have seriousrepercussions on the development of the country as awhole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureauof Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate ofEnforcement (supra), State of Bihar and Anr. v. AmitKumar alias Bachcha Rai. This Court taking a seriousnote with regard to the economic offences hadobserved as back as in 1987 in case of State ofGujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. asunder:5... The entire community is aggrieved if theeconomic offenders who ruin the economy ofthe State are not brought to books. A murdermay be committed in the heat of moment uponpassions being aroused. An economic offence iscommitted with cool calculation and deliberatedesign with an eye on personal profitregardless of the consequence to thecommunity. A disregard for the interest of thecommunity can be manifested only at the costof forfeiting the trust and faith of thecommunity in the system to administer justicein an even-handed manner without fear ofcriticism from the quarters which view whitecollar crimes with a permissive eye unmindfulof the damage done to the National Economyand National Interest...23. With the advancement of technology and ArtificialIntelligence, the economic offences like moneylaundering have become a real threat to thefunctioning of the financial system of the country andhave become a great challenge for the investigatingagencies to detect and comprehend the intricatenature of transactions, as also the role of the personsinvolved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected tobe undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see thatno innocent person is wrongly booked and that noculprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When thedetention of the Accused is continued by the Court,the courts are also expected to conclude the trialswithin a reasonable time, further ensuring the right ofspeedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of theConstitution.” 13BA616&679.202514]The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofManik Madhukar Sarve and others Vs. Vitthal Damuji Meherand others, Criminal Appeal No.3573 of 2024, dated28.08.2024, at paragraphs no.24, 26 and 27“24.We bear in mind the submission thatrespondent no.1 was a close associate of the Presidentof the Society with regular business/other dealingsbetween the two. Investigation also indicates that outof the monies withdrawn from the Society’s accountby the respondent no.1, investments were later madein property in the name of his relatives. Further, theHigh Court has completely lost sight of the fact thatthe deposits in/to the Society were made by peoplehaving meagre earnings without anything else to fallback upon. Tentatively speaking, it seems that thePresident of the Society systematically siphoned offthese funds, with the aid of other office-bearers asalso through respondent no.1. We consciously refrainfrom elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence orour views thereon following the dicta in NiranjanSingh v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC559; Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra,(2012) 8 SCC 795 and Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi vState of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 560.26.The High Court, we have no hesitation insaying so, erred in law. Ergo, for reasons recordedabove and upon circumspect consideration of theattendant facts and circumstances, we hold that thediscretionexercised by the learned Single Judge of theHigh Court to grant bail to the respondent no.1 wasnot in tune with the principles that conventionallygovern exercise of such power, a plurality of whichstand enunciated in the case-law supra. Moreover,though respondent no.1 had already sufferedincarceration for a period of about six months at thetime when bail was granted, yet in view of the natureof the alleged offence, his release on bail canseriously lead to dissipation of the properties whereinvestments have allegedly been made out of Societyfunds. At the end of the day, the interests of the
Decision
15BA616&679.2025the team of the main accused and part of the allegedinvestment is shown to be made into the account of AccusedNo.3 / Suhas Pandit Chavan and also in the name of theabsconding accused as is noted in the chart above. Thus, theapplicant – Suhas Pandit Chavan, Bail Application No.616of 2025, is refused bail at this stage. Bail ApplicationNo.616 of 2025 of the applicant – Suhas Pandit Chavan(Accused No.3) stands dismissed. Liberty reserved to theapplicant – Suhas Pandit Chavan to apply afresh if the trialdoes not conclude within a period of one year.17]As regards the applicant – Rajendra @ PankajPralhad Jadhav, Bail Application No.679 of 2025, theapplicant is in jail for last 7 months. The maximumpunishment for the offence is 7 years. There are noantecedents against the applicant. He has not received anyamount in his account and, prima-faice, if appears that hehas introduced the informant to the co-accused.Considering these aspects of the matter, the court wouldconsider to grant bail to the applicant - Rajendra @ PankajPralhad Jadhav, Bail Application No.679 of 2025, onconditions 18]In view of the above, Bail Application No.679 of2025 of the applicant – Rajendra @ Pankaj Pralhad Jadhavis allowed in the following terms : 16BA616&679.2025a]The applicant RAJENDRA @ PANKAJ PRALHADJADHAV shall be released on bail in connection withCrime No.0213/2024, dated 27.11.2024, registeredwith Osmanpura Police Station, District ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar, for the offences punishable underSections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B r/w. 34 of theIPC & under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, onfurnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or twosureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trialCourt. b]The applicant - RAJENDRA @ PANKAJ PRALHADJADHAV shall not misuse the liberty and involve in anyoffence of similar nature and that he would give all thedetails of the properties, his phone number to the trialcourt and will not dispose or deal with that propertiestill the conclusion of the trial.c]The applicant - RAJENDRA @ PANKAJ PRALHADJADHAV shall co-operate with the trial Court and heshall attend each and every date, unless exempted bythe trial Court.d]The applicant - RAJENDRA @ PANKAJ PRALHADJADHAV shall not tamper with the evidence of theprosecution and he shall not influence the informant,witnesses and other persons concerned with the case. e]The applicant - RAJENDRA @ PANKAJ PRALHADJADHAV, upon being released on bail, shall place onrecord of the trial Court the details of his ContactNumber and residential address with updates in case ofany change. 19]Needless to say, in case of violation of any ofthe aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicant -RAJENDRA @ PANKAJ PRALHAD JADHAV shall be liable tobe cancelled. 17BA616&679.202520]It is also clarified that the observations made inthis order are limited to the disposal of the present bailapplication. The concerned Court shall proceed further inthe matter without being influenced by the observationsmade hereinabove. 21]Bail Application No.616 of 2025 is dismissedand Bail Application No.679 of 2025 is allowed. Both theapplications stand disposed of accordingly. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe