914-ABA-1967-2026.ODT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1967 OF 2026 Minakshi Rohit Nagdev @ Minaxi Rameshchandra Pallod And Anr. …Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Adv. Siddharth Mehta a/w Adv. Aman Bhide, for the Applicants. Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, A.P. P., for the Respondent – State. API Suraj Raut, Rabodi Police Station, Thane, is present. CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 1ST SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned APP for respondent – State. 2. The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 82 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026, registered with Rabodi Police Station, Thane, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The applicants have filed instant application under Section 482 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. 1st September 2026 914-ABA-1967-2026.ODT 4. The FIR is registered on the basis of a report lodged by complainant alleging that during the period from 19.12.2024 to 21.04.2026 he had advanced hand loan of total amount of Rs. 2,77,00,000/- to the accused no.1. It is alleged that on the basis of certain misrepresentation made by the accused no.1 showing need for amount, the complainant has given hand loan from time to time to the accused No.1. On the basis of the allegations that at some point of time this applicant was also present with accused no.1, the FIR is registered against three accused persons. The applicant no.1 (accused no.3) is wife of accused no.1 Rohit Nagdev and applicant no.2 (accused No.3) is father-in-law of accused no.1. It is stated that accused no.1 is in custody . 5. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the only allegations against these applicants are about their presence with accused no.1 at some point of time when he had demanded hand loan from the complainant. He submits that the applicant no.1 is a teacher by profession who is serving at Pune and applicant no.2 is also residing at Pune. He states that even the promissory note allegedly given in favour of the complainant 1st September 2026 914-ABA-1967-2026.ODT is singed only by accused no.1. He also states that in view of the interim protection granted by this Court by order dated 24.07.2026, the applicants have attended the police station and have joined the investigation. He therefore, prays for confirmation of interim protection. 6. As against this, learned APP for respondent – State opposed the application and submitted that the complainant has been cheated for huge amount of Rs. 2,77,00,000/-. It is also submitted that there are allegations about presence of these applicants with accused no.1 when the amounts were demanded by accused no.1. However, there is no dispute that the applicants have attended police station in accordance with the interim protection granted by this Court. 7. Considering the allegations in the FIR, it appears that the main role of inducement and cheating is against accused no.1 Rohit Nagdev. The role attributed to these applicants is about their presence with accused no.1 at some point of time. Considering the fact that these applicants have joined the investigation and have extended co-operation, the interim 1st September 2026 914-ABA-1967-2026.ODT protection granted by order dated 24.07.2026 needs to be confirmed, subject to certain conditions. 8. Hence, I pass following order :- ORDER (i) The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of the applicants in Crime No. 82 of 2026, registered with Rabodi Police Station, Thane, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, they be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with one solvent surety of the like amount. (iii) The applicants shall attend the police station as and when called upon by the investigating agency, till filing of the chargesheet. (iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly pressurize the prosecution witnesses. (v) Breach of any of these conditions, shall be a ground for cancellation of the bail. 9. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) VDMokal/- 1st September 2026