(905) BA-3035.24.DOCX lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3035 OF 2024 Abhijeet Sanjay Kulkarni And Anr. : Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra : Respondents. ---- Mr. Avinash Avhad a/w Adv. Mandar Morankar for the Applicants. Ms. Rajeshree Newton APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. V. A. Shastry for the Intervenor. API Ganesh Jadhav, Deccan Police Station, Pune, present. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 22 JULY 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants, Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent/State and Mr. V. A. Shatry, learned Advocate for the Intervenor. 2. By the present Application, the Applicants seek bail in connection with Crime No. 52 of 2021 registered with the Deccan Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (“MPID Act”) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 1 LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date: 2026.07.23 20:25:32 +0530 (905) BA-3035.24.DOCX 3. Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants, states that there are four (4) accused in Crime No. 52 of 2021. He further states that Applicant No.1 is Accused No.1 and Applicant No.2 is Accused No.2. Crime No. 52 of 2021 is registered as Special Case No. 723 of 2021 and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune (“Sessions Court”). 4. The case of the prosecution is that the Applicants (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) lured and induced the Intervenor and other investors (ten (10) investors referred to in the charge-sheet) by promising higher returns on the amounts invested with them. Based on the promises and assurances made by the Applicants, the investors invested Rs. 6,22,39,000/- with the Applicants. The Applicants neither returned the principal amount nor any interest thereon, resulting in the registration of crime No. 52 of 2021. 5. Applicants were arrested on 25 June 2021. Bail Application at Exhibit 148 on the file of the Special Case No.723 of 2021 was rejected by the Sessions Court on 21 May 2024. 6. Records of this Application show that the Applicants were granted interim bail by the Sessions Court. 7. Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that the Applicants seek bail on two grounds. First, the Applicants have been in custody for 5 years, from 25 June 2021 till date and the charge has not been framed as on date. Second, he submits that the amount involved in the present crime is Rs.6,22,39,000/-, out of which the Applicants have deposited Rs.75,00,000/- in the Court, which would show the bonafides of the Applicants. 2 (905) BA-3035.24.DOCX 8. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent- State, submits that the delay in framing the charge is directly and squarely attributable to the Applicants. She submits that despite several attempts by the Sessions Court to frame the charge, the Applicants, in collusion with Accused Nos. 3 and 4, who have been released on bail, have succeeded in delaying the commencement of the trial. She submits that the Applicants have deliberately created a situation and are now trying to take advantage of the same. She submits that the Applicants are involved in luring and duping investors using the same modus operandi as in the present crime. She submits that the Applicants have criminal antecedents of a similar nature, involving offences under the MPID Act, for which they were convicted and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. She submits that the prosecution was and is willing and ready to expedite the trial, however, the Accused are not cooperating and creating hurdles. 9. Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for the Intervenor, submits that the Applicants (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) are the principal persons and masterminds who lured and induced the Intervenor and other gullible investors to invest their hard-earned money, amounting to Rs.6,22,39,000/-, on the false promise of huge returns on the said investments. He submits that the Applicants' intention from inception was dishonest and to cheat the investors. He submits that the Intervenor and the investors have been deprived of their hard-earned money. He submits that the Applicants have been convicted of similar, in fact identical, offences. 3 (905) BA-3035.24.DOCX 10. Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that the Applicants have filed further proceedings against their conviction in the case referred to by Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP. 11. Perused the records. 12. It would be relevant to note the observations made by the Sessions Court in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the order dated 21 May 2024, passed on Exhibit 148, in the file of Special Case No. 723 of 2021, rejecting the bail application filed by the Applicants: “16] The proceedings further indicate that time and again the applicants have sought temporary bail. They were on temporary bail for about 100 days. Though the applicants contend that they did not misuse such temporary bail, proceedings do not indicate that they have not used said temporary bail for any purpose for which it was granted. 17] Proceedings further indicate that on the applications by the applicant, they were allowed to meet, they were allowed to have internet access so also access to their gazettes on their promise that they would perform the activities to initiate the process of refund to the depositors. At the end, all their promises turned out to be false assurances. The applicants have taken the Court on a ride on false assurances despite knowing that them could do nothing. This is evident from various orders passed in this case. 18] Proceedings further indicate that the applicants and the co- accused have went on moving applications one after another and thus have delayed framing of charge though in a similar case against them, the Court ultimately framed charges against them. These tactics on the part of the applicants and the co-accused to delay the framing of charges can be noticed and experienced in almost every MPID case.” (emphasis supplied) 4 (905) BA-3035.24.DOCX 13. Based on the observations of the Sessions Court, Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent/State, is justified in her submission that the delay in framing the charge is attributable to the Applicants. Further, the observations of the Sessions Court in Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the order dated 21 May 2024, passed on Exhibit 148 indicate the conduct and approach of the Applicant, which prima facie appear not bona fide. 14. Though, Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants, restricted the request for bail only on two grounds as recorded in paragraph no. 7 hereinabove, and did not canvass any arguments on the merits of the case, considering that the Applicants are in jail for the period as submitted by Mr. Avinash Avhad, I have perused the material which forms part of the charge- sheet. 15. Perusal of the material on record substantiates the contention of Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for the Intervenor, that the credulous investors were indeed induced and lured to invest their money on the promise of huge returns. Applicants appear to have devised a systematic plan to target investors. Prima facie case against the Applicants in respect of the offences charged is made out. 16. Applicants have identical antecedents. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP, and Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for the Intervenor, submit that the said criminal antecedent is similar and in fact, identical to the case in hand. The fact of the antecedent, namely its similarity to crime No. 52 of 2021 and the 5 (905) BA-3035.24.DOCX Applicants' conviction in the same, are not contested by Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants. 17. Considering the observations made by the Sessions Court in the order dated 21 May 2024, passed on Exhibit 148, the delay in framing charge is squarely attributable to the Applicants. Ms. Rajeshree Newton and Mr. V. A. Shastry are justified in contending that the Applicants appear to have planned and created a situation, thereby delaying the framing of the charge and the commencement of the trial, with the intention of claiming an advantage from the same. 18. For the reasons stated above, this is not a case in which the Applicants can claim denial of a speedy trial. The Sessions Court, in the order dated 21 May 2024 passed on Exhibit 148, has assigned reasons for the delay in framing the charge, which are attributable to the Accused. Thus, the ground of long incarceration cannot be extended to the Applicants. 19. The second contention of Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned Advocate for the Applicants, that the Applicants have shown bona fides by depositing the sum of Rs.75,00,000/- in the Court, is taken on record for the purpose of rejection. The total amount involved in crime No. 52 of 2021 is Rs. 6,22,39,000/-. Apparently, the Sessions Court had given sufficient opportunity to the Applicants to show their bona fides, if any. What resulted from those opportunities is recorded by the Sessions Court in paragraph No. 17 of the order dated 21 May 2024, passed on Exhibit 148. Sessions Court in no less words has observed “…... The applicants have taken the Court on a ride on false assurances despite knowing that them could do nothing….” 6 (905) BA-3035.24.DOCX 20. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent/State, however, in all fairness, submits that the prosecution has enlisted ten (10) witnesses in Special Case No. 723 of 2021 and is ready and willing to examine all 10 witnesses and complete the trial at the earliest, subject to cooperation from the Applicants and other Accused. She, on instructions, reiterates her submission that the Applicants and other Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are not cooperating in the trial, resulting in delay. This submission by Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP, was met with silence from the Applicants. 21. Mr. V. A. Shastry, learned Advocate for the Intervenor, endorses the submissions made by Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent-State. He further states that the Intervenor, who is one of the witnesses, is ready and willing to be examined. 22. In view of the above, Criminal Bail Application No.3035 of 2024 is rejected. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) 7