12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3579 OF 2025 Shahanawaz Abdul Rasheed Khan .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2026 Amish Kumar Tribhuvan Srivastav .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.4074 OF 2025 Nikunj Mahesh Joshi .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.4643 OF 2025 Ramesh Navrang Yadav .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent ....................  Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w. Mr. Sahil Ghorpade, Mr. Shivkumar S. Bais, Mr. Madan Khansole, Mr. Surya P. Gupta i/b. G. G. Legal Associates, Advocates, for the Applicant in B. A. No. 3579 of 2025.  Mr. Bhushan Mahadik a/w. Ms. Neha Sule i/b. Mahadik And Associates, Advocates for Applicant in B. A. No. 313 of 2026.  Mr. Pradyumna D. Sharma a/w. Mr. Digvijay Kachare, Mr. Gautam P. Khobragade, Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocates for Applicant in B. A. No. 4074 of 2025.  Mr. Saugata Hazra a/w. Ms. Maitrayee Gadhave & Mr. Vaibhav Gadekar, Advocates for Applicant in B. A. No. 4643 of 2025.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar and Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP's for the Respondent - State. 1 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc  Mr. Dinesh Adsule a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Bhole & Mr. Chinmay Bhole, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 / Original Complainant in B. A. No. 313 of 2026.  Mr. Ramishwar Parve, API, Crime Branch, Unit-III, Panvel, Navi Mumbai present. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned APP for the Respondent - State and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2/Original Complainant B. A. No. 313 of 2026. 2. This is a group of four Bail Applications heard and decided together in view of commonality of facts by this common order. In B. A. No. 313 of 2026, the Applicant is Accused No. 11 duly represented by Mr. Mahadik, Advocate. In B. A. No. 3579 of 2025, the Applicant is Accused No. 9 duly represented by Mr. Gupta, Advocate. In B. A. No. 4074 of 2025, the Applicant is Accused No. 10 duly represented by Mr. Sharma, Advocate. In B. A. No. 4643 of 2025, the Applicant is Accused No. 8 duly represented by Mr. Hazra, Advocate. All of them have been indicted in the same crime for cheating and forgery by virtue of an FIR registered on 10.06.2024. Mr. Adsule, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the Complainant in all 4 Bail Applications which is the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Iron & Steel Market Committee (for short "MMRISMC") which is the Semi Government Organization. The 2 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc prosecution team is led by Mr. Karmakar and Ms. Gotad. Briefly stated according to the prosecution case, Accused No. 1 who is the principal in the present case approached the office of the MMRISMC and persuaded them to invest in fixed deposits of UCO Bank. It is not only intriguing but highly surprising that between 01.06.2022 and 30.05.2024, the said MMRISMC invested a humongous amount of Rs. 54 Crores on the persuasion and request made by Accused No. 1 one Mr. Suman Sharma claiming to be an officer of the UCO Bank. After two years when it was revealed in the statutory audit that there was some discrepancy regarding returns it was seen that there was no such Bank as UCO Bank, where the deposits were made. In that view of the matter, an FIR came to be registered on 10.06.2024 and investigation was carried out. The investigation revealed that the fixed deposit receipts given by Mr. Sharma to the MMRISMC were, in fact, forged, fabricated and the monies which were taken by Mr. Sharma by way of investments in fixed deposits and were in fact deposited in fictitious accounts and the monies were siphoned off. Though it is informed and apprised to the Court that for a period of two years, certain interest was also received by the said MMRISMC on their investments, that probably may have been the reason to lure the MMRISMC into making more and more deposits so that confidence of the MMRISMC could be gained. In the aforesaid facts, there are four Applicants before me who are arraigned as Accused in the present crime. Mr. Mahadik, learned 3 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc Counsel very long represents Accused No. 11, who was working for a very long period of its 27 years with the MMRISMC as its Executive Officer. He would submit that he was not the signing authority and he has never issued any cheque whatsoever to Mr. Suman Sharma for the purpose of deposit. He would, in fact, apprise the Court that all cheques which were issued to Mr. Suman Sharma for the contentious period between 2022 and 2024 were issued by the Chairman and CEO who have, in fact, not to be been arraigned as Accused persons rather they find themselves to be into the shoes of the Complainant. He would submit that the prosecution has filed three Charge-sheets pursuant to investigation and Accused No. 11 finds his name having been reflected in the third Charge-sheet on the ground that he was a privy to what had transpired regarding the investments made. Insofar as Accused No. 9 is concerned, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel would submit that save and except the fact that Accused No.9 was having a rubber stamp manufacturing shop, there is nothing amiss qua his role in the present crime. He would submit that according to the prosecution case, he has been charged with replication of a receipt given to him by one of his friends, who is arraigned as Accused No. 8 and represented by Mr. Hazra. He would submit that, that apart, according to the prosecution, Accused No. 9 has received Rs.1.59/- lacs, as the alleged proceeds of crime but according to his explanation, this amount is received over a substantial period of time intermittently 4 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc from Accused No. 8 in view of his business relationship with Accused No. 8. Insofar as Accused No. 8 is concerned, represented by Mr. Hazra, case of the prosecution is that Accused No. 8 has received an amount of Rs. 12.75/- lacs in his account from the principal Accused No. 1. According to Mr. Hazra, this amount was friendly loan given to him by Accused No. 1 and beyond that he would not be in a position to say anything. Insofar as Accused No. 10 is concerned duly represented by Mr. Sharma, he would submit that he is a businessman and into trading business. He would submit that the case of the prosecution qua him is about he having received Rs. 14 Crores in his account. However, he has sought to give an explanation to the same for it to be a loan having procured by him from some NBFC and papers to that effect are placed on record. However, he would further inform the Court that even according to the prosecution, this amount of Rs. 14 Crores which was received by him in his never account was paid over further to Accused No. 1 and was never retained by him save and except an amount of Rs.63/ lacs which was withdrawn by him from the said account. That apart, the prosecution wad has also alleged that Accused No. 10 had signed rather was the signatory of some fixed deposit receipt. 3. Insofar as the case of the Complainant is concerned, Mr. Adsule has very forcefully persuaded me to not grant bail to the Applicants and stated that in the event if the Court is ready to grant 5 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc bail to the Applicants, the Applicants be put to terms & conditions qua the monies they have received and they be asked to deposit amounts to show their bonafides. Mr. Adsule would submit that insofar as Accused No. 11 is concerned, he was the Executive Officer and working in the office of the MMRISMC and was having full knowledge visit about all persons who used to visit the office of the MMRISMC for work. He would go to the extent of stating that Accused No. 11 was hand in glove and in collusion with the principal Accused No. 1 - Mr. Suman Sharma. However, he would submit that insofar as Accused No. 11 is concerned, it is not shown by the prosecution case that he was a beneficiary. In support of his above submissions, he would refer to and rely upon the Affidavit-in-reply dated 16.03.2026 filed by the Interveners. With regard to Accused Nos. 8, 9 & 10, he would submit that their role as per the prosecution case was involvement in forgery and in giving the cheques which were involved and receiving different amounts in their Bank accounts. He would, therefore, persuade the Court to consider putting conditions to the Applicants. 4. Learned prosecutors Mr. Karmakar and Ms. Gotad, who would adopt the submissions made by Mr. Adsule and would submit that a large scale fraud has been played on MMRISMC to the extent of Rs.54 Crores and therefore, this Court should be cautious before releasing any of the Accused persons on bail, since a prima facie has been made out against them. I have considered the submissions 6 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc advanced by learned Counsel at the bar and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. 5. Prima facie, I find that insofar as the principal Accused No. 1 Mr. Suman Sharma is concerned, he is absconding. The prosecution is not in a position to show as to where the end tracing of the funds of Rs. 54 Crores received by Mr. Suman Sharma has ultimately been received and by which of the Accused persons. The peripheral role of Accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 in the present case, prima facie, enables me to consider their case for grant of bail. Insofar as Accused No. 11 is concerned, he has made out a very strong case for grant of bail in view of the fact that save and except, he having proximity of being an employee of the MMRISMC, there is nothing incriminating which has been shown by the prosecution or he having been shown as a beneficiary. Mr. Suman Sharma the principal protagonist is not in jail but he is released. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to grant bail at this prima facie stage to all four Accused persons before me as I am convinced by the submissions made by their respective Advocates. 7. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and finding, Bail Applications of the 4 Applicants before me are allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- 7 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc (i) The Applicant - Shahanawaz Abdul Rasheed Khan is directed to be released on bail in connection with C. R. No. 206 of 2024 registered with Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, upon furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024; (ii) The Applicant - Amish Kumar Tribhuvan Srivastav is directed to be released on bail in connection with C. R. No. 206 of 2024 registered with Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, upon furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024; (iii) The Applicant - Nikunj Mahesh Joshi is directed to be released on bail in connection with C. R. No. 206 of 2024 registered with Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, upon furnishing a P. R. Bond in 8 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024; (iv) The Applicant - Ramesh Navrang Yadav is directed to be released on bail in connection with C. R. No. 206 of 2024 registered with Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, upon furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024; (v) The Applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade that person from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer and shall not tamper with evidence; (vi) The Applicants shall, within three (3) days of their release from jail, provide to the 9 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc Investigating Officer, Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad, their residential addresses, contact numbers, e-mails and must inform the Investigating Officer about any change in the same from time to time; (vii) The Applicants shall surrender their passports to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel, in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024 within three days of their release from jail; (viii)The Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer, Kalamboli Police Station, Raigad on the 2nd and 4th Saturday of each month from 11.00 am to 12.00 noon till conclusion of trial in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024; (ix) The Applicants shall regularly appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in R.C.C.No. 876 of 2024 as and when the matter is fixed, unless specifically exempted; (x) If the Applicants abstain from appearing before the Trial Court, then the same would be considered as a breach of Court conditions and the Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate 10 of 11 12.BA.3579.2025-common order.doc orders; (xi) The Applicants shall not leave India without prior permission from the Court. 8. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 9. All four Bail Applications, being B. A. No. 3579 of 2025, B. A. No. 313 of 2026, B. A. No. 4074 of 2025 and B. A. No. 4643 of 2025 are allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Anand [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 11 of 11 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.04 17:52:46 +0530