910-aba-3564-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3564 OF 2025 Sandeep Arora @ Karan Arora …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 71 OF 2026 Mr. Shantanu Derhgawen i/b Mr. Abhishek Yende, & Adv. Ankit Trivedi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent/State. Adv. Parvez Memon, Adv. Valentina Sampson i/b MZM Legal, Advocate for the Intervener/Respondent No.2. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 23.01.2026. P.C. : 1. This is an application for Anticipatory Bail. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 767 of 2025 registered at Vartak Nagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 409, 120-B, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, in August 2017, Pramod S.Lakare 1/5 910-aba-3564-2025.doc the applicant, who is Managing Director of High Ground Enterprises Limited (HGEL) approached the first informant/company, Tata Capital Financial Services Limited (TCFSL), seeking lease finance for audio visual and IT equipments such as (Lenovo desktop, HP workstation, Alexa camera kits, servers, Nimbus storage, etc. On the basis of the documents submitted by the HGEL, TCFSL sanctioned and disbursed Rs.3,25,56,200/- to STANCE Synergies Private Limited and Rs.1,74,31,547/- to Hero Wiretex Private Limited from its HDFC Bank account. It is alleged that after the Master Lease Agreement dated 08.11.2017, HGEL allegedly claimed purchase of the following items under the 2017 sanction: 35HP Z840 workstations, 110 Lenove V310 Notebooks, 39 Lenovo S510 desktops, and 1 Alexa ST Camera with lenses. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the year 2018, the Directors of HGEL again approached the TCFSL (now TCL) for additional lease finance. Accordingly, they submitted documents such as loan applications, sanction letters and the proforma invoices issued by STANCE Synergies Private Limited. On the basis of the said documents, on 04.10.2018, TCFSL disbursed an amount of Rs.6,00,00,000/- through three cheques issued in favour of STANCE Synergies Pramod S.Lakare 2/5 910-aba-3564-2025.doc Private Limited, towards payment of the invoices raised for the 2018 equipment list. It is alleged that HGEL paid instalments only up to August 2019, amounting to Rs.61,16,219/- and ceased payment thereafter. It is further alleged that the TCFSL had claimed GST input credit on the basis of the alleged invoices issued by STANCE Synergies Private Limited and Hero Wiretex Private Limited. However, in the month of May 2019, the GST Department issued a notice stating therein that both supply companies had not deposited GST capital despite issuing tax invoices. As a result, TCFSL was compelled to pay Rs.1,06,55,275/- (including interest and penalty) in June 2019 towards the GST liability arising from these transactions. It is the case of the prosecution that, in order to conduct the asset verification, the complainant’s company officers visited the address provided by HGEL. However, no leased equipment could be found at the site and it was found that the present applicant, in connivance with the other co-accused, prepared bogus invoices, without actual supply of goods and thereby defrauded the first informant/company to the tune of Rs.12,06,42,715. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the Pramod S.Lakare 3/5 910-aba-3564-2025.doc learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the first informant/company. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it was not permissible for the first informant/company to classify the loan account as fraud without hearing the applicant. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022 decided on 27.03.2023. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that total amount of Rs.6,42,30,472/- was paid to the first informant/company towards repayment of loan in question and thus it cannot be said that from the very inception the intent of the applicant and other co- accused was to cheat the first informant/company. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation. 6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent- State submits that bogus invoices, without actual supply of goods, were submitted as proof that they had purchased the material Pramod S.Lakare 4/5 910-aba-3564-2025.doc from STANCE Synergies Private Limited and Hero Wiretex Private Limited. It is submitted that the said companies transferred Rs. 9,00,00,000/- into the personal bank account of the present applicant. It is further submitted that nine other offences of similar nature are registered against the present applicant. Learned APP submits that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy. 7. I have perused the papers of investigation. It appears that false and bogus invoices were submitted for getting the amount sanctioned, without actual supply of the goods. It appears that applicant is involved in few more crimes of similar nature. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. 8. Interim Application for intervention stands disposed of. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Pramod S.Lakare 5/5