55.BA.3371.2026.doc Ajay 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. 3371 OF 2026 Anil Uttam Chaudhari .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant.  Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for Respondent – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Palkar, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. Mr. Shinde would submit that though in the offence under consideration, Applicant was arrested in the year 2015, but he was subsequently released on bail, but certain developments occurred and since this Court was not hearing the Revision Application of Applicant, Applicant had to move the Supreme Court. 3. This was only done when this Court started asking questions with regard to the timeline in the present matter because Applicant was arrested 14 months ago in the year 2025 and being incarcerated for the past 14 months and has approached this Court for bail. Mr. Shinde ought to have been candid and clear to the Court. It is only 1 of 4 55.BA.3371.2026.doc when the Court started asking questions about the past that the Supreme Court order appended at page No.611 of the Application was shown to the Court. Mr. Shinde has also argued that since the co- accused person has been released on bail, Applicant be also released on parity. 4. Advocates who appear before this Court in the bail roster have to be honest with the Court. On merits, it is seen that Applicant was arrested on 29.07.2015, but he was released on bail on 05.11.2015 on the basis of an undertaking. By order dated 11.01.2019, bail which was granted to Applicant was cancelled by this Court, but Applicant was protected intermittently from that point of time onwards until the Supreme Court order dated 23.07.2019 protected Applicant initially for four weeks and permitted him to deposit the said amount within four weeks therefrom. When the said order of the Supreme Court is read the conscience of the Court is shocked to see that despite promising the Supreme Court that the amount of deposit was ready to be paid as noted by the Supreme Court in its order, till date, Applicant has not deposited any amount for over almost six years. 5. It is shocking and equally surprising to the Court that for such a long period of time, Applicant had remained scot free and now when he has been arrested, he comes before the Court and states that 2 of 4 55.BA.3371.2026.doc he is not in a position to deposit any amount and claims parity. The total outlay of amount involved in the present case is to the tune of more than 8 crores admittedly received by Applicant. 6. There is prima facie documentary material which is placed on record which shows the role, participation and therefore indictment of Applicant. Applicant's bonafides were tested not once, but twice by this Court as also by the Supreme Court. But it is clear that Applicant has taken undue advantage of the order of the Supreme Court. It is time that such kind of Applicants who take advantage, rather undue advantage of the system should be weeded out from the system itself. 7. Without adverting to the intent of cheating on merits, even otherwise it is against Applicant, the Applicant having not abided by the order of the Supreme Court and today he coming before the Court and stating that he is not in a position to deposit any amount and his case be considered on merits cannot be accepted and Applicant's case for grant of bail is therefore outrightly rejected. 8. There is substantial material which is placed on record by the prosecution on investigation which is documentary material evidence, bank statements which prima facie show deceit practiced by the Applicant on the face of record of taking investments of substantial amounts from various investors by promising them astronomical returns and then duping them. 3 of 4 55.BA.3371.2026.doc 9. The role of Applicant is prima facie clear in the offence of cheating and most importantly forgery of various documents which have been placed on record and the fact that he was initially absconding and not even appearing before the Court and then when he appeared before the Court, he made a false promise that he would deposit the amount of Rs.50 lakhs which was recorded in the Supreme Court order 23.07.2019, but Applicant was not aware which Court to deposit the amount, itself goes against all tenets of any appreciation required in bail matters. 10. When the bail of Applicant was cancelled at the earlier point of time, it was clearly noted by the Court in its order that not only did the Applicant fail to comply with the condition of deposit, but he had also threatened the original Complainant. 11. Merely on the ground of parity, Applicant's case can therefore never be considered for grant of bail and specifically so in view of the order of the Supreme Court which was passed qua the Applicant, copy of which is appended at page No.611 of the Application. The Applicant thereafter showed no intent to deposit the amount at all. Hence, the Application doesn't deserve any merit whatsoever and is therefore dismissed comprehensively. 12. In view of the above, Bail Application is dismissed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 4 of 4 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.28 20:27:31 +0530