905-ABA-2168-2024.doc Harish IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2168 OF 2024 Keshav Kumar Shashi Bhushan Sinha ...Applicant V/s. State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Pranil Pawar, for the Applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent – State. PSI – Mr. Sachin Taware, Colaba Police Station in present. ________________________________________________________ CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , J. DATE : 10 TH JULY, 2026. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pranil Pawar, for the applicant, as well as advocate Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has filed the instant application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking pre- arrest bail in Crime No. 189 of 2019 registered with Colaba Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian 1/8 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc Penal Code read with Section 66(c) & (d) of Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. Perused the application and the documents filed on record. The informant has lodged a report with the allegations that in the year 2019 he had come in contact with one person on Instagram, and the said person by name Jackson Wayne Conner, had engaged in chatting with the informant. It is alleged that the said person has created an impression that he would sell the paintings of the complainant, however, requested the informant to transfer some money to save his own employment. It is alleged that accordingly the informant believed on him and considering his needs, had transferred several amounts from time to time to the extent of total of amount of Rs. 18,90,000/- in five accounts. It is alleged that one of the account is that of the present applicant to whom an amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- came to be transferred on 30.10.2019. Thereafter, when the said person demanded further amounts, the informant got some suspicion and it was revealed that the informant was cheated. On the basis of these allegations the FIR came to be registered and this 2/8 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in the said offence. 4. Advocate Mr. Pranil Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the crime and in fact he himself is cheated by unknown persons who had hacked his bank account. He submitted that there are no allegations that this applicant has made any promise or any assurance to the informant and thus there is no question of any cheating. However, it has to be noted that there is no dispute about receipt of an amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- in the account of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that considering his submissions about the transactions during the period of Covid-19 Pandemic, the investigating officer has earlier made a statement that the applicant shall not be arrested, as recorded in order dated 28th August, 2024 and in view of this, the applicant was protected. He further submitted that the interim protection was continued and the applicant is not arrested. He invites attention to subsequent order passed by this Court on 9th April, 2026 which records that this applicant has expressed 3/8 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc readiness to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- on the account of the victim, within three months from the date and on completion of three months, now, the applicant seeks further extension of time to deposit the amount. It is interesting to note that the counsel for applicant has although made a requests for extension of time to deposit the amount, at the same time, has submitted that any direction to deposit the amount by way of condition to grant anticipatory bail is contrary to the position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported at (2023) 7 SCC. He submitted that such kind of condition ought not to have been imposed and the application for anticipatory bail needs to be considered without giving importance to such any condition. 6. Learned APP for the respondent has vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the applicant/accused has wrongfully gained the amount by way of transfer from the complainant. He further submits that the applicant has received the amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- and despite clear statement before this Court as recorded in order dated 9th 4/8 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc April, 2026 has failed to repay the amount and therefore, the instant application is liable to be rejected on this count alone. He also submits that this applicant has committed similar offence which was registered against him with Worli Police Station and although the said offence came to be compromised, this fact shows that the applicant is habitual offender. 7. Advocate Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the respondent also invited my attention to the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the matter of Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 1571 and submitted that the readiness of the applicant to refund the amount is of no consequence while considering the application for anticipatory bail. He submitted that the involvement of this applicant in the offence of cheating is clear, since the applicant has received the amount in his account in the year 2019 and did not repay till date and this conduct clearly shows the acts of cheating by the applicant. 8. A perusal of the allegations in the report lodged by 5/8 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc the complainant reveals that on account of certain assurances given by some other person viz. Jackson Wayne Conner, the complainant has transferred substantial amounts in several accounts. It is clear that an amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- is transferred in the account of this applicant. There is nothing to show that the account of this applicant was hacked and the applicant has never lodged any report in that regard. It is pointed out by the learned APP that there are several transactions in the account of this applicant which are after the amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- was received by this applicant and he has utilized the said amount. There is noting to show that this applicant was entitled to receive the said amount from the informant and on the contrary, his readiness to refund the amount as recorded by this Court in its order dated 9th April, 2026 shows that the applicant had no authority to retain the said amount. 9. It has to be noted that this applicant has enjoyed the interim protection on the basis of his assurance that he will refund the amount by transferring it to the account of the victim. Despite lapse of considerable time, the applicant has not 6/8 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc deposited/refunded the amount to the victim and is now seeking extensions on account of his personal reasons about accident of his father. It has to be noted that the informant stands cheated and has suffered wrongful loss of an amount of 7,88,900/-. The entire conduct on the part of the applicant therefore, shows that he has received the amount from the informant, without any reason and has secured wrongful gain. The applicant has failed to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- in the bank account of the victim, despite a clear undertaking given to this Court as recorded in order dated 9th April, 2026 and therefore, the instant application deserves to be rejected on this count alone. 10. Is is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also recorded it’s observations in Gajanan Dattatray Gore (referred supra) that the applications for regular or anticipatory bails be strictly decided on the merits of the case and the discretion shall not be exercised on the basis of any undertaking or any statement by the accused person about readiness and willingness to make the payments. In the wake of 7/8 905-ABA-2168-2024.doc these observations, the readiness of the applicant to refund the amount to the informant by seeking any extension of time is of no consequence. It is surprising to see that the applicant has shown the audacity to argue, that his own statement about readiness to refund the amount of Rs. 7,88,900/- to the victim was itself contrary to the legal position and the same cannot be imposed by way of condition for grant of anticipatory bail. It has to be noted that the readiness to refund the amount was expressed by the applicant himself and he has enjoyed the protection on that basis and therefore the contentions which are now putforth to oppose the condition of deposit are not at all acceptable. 11. In view of the above, considering the material showing involvement of the applicants / accused in the offence who has received the amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- and further considering the overall conduct of the applicant, he does not deserves to be protected by any discretionary order. Hence, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 8/8