48.BA.202.2026.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. 202 OF 2026 Krunal Ganeshbhai Dekate .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Swarali Joglekar for Applicant.  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State.  Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari, Advocate for Intervenor – Respondent No.2.  API – Mr. Kishor Kolhe, EOW Nashik City present. ......…........… CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Pujari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Intervenor whose name appears in the complaint / FIR filed by the First Informant 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.I-221 of 2025 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, District Nashik for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). The First Information Report is filed on 06.08.2025 and Applicant came to be arrested on 06.08.2025. 1 of 6 48.BA.202.2026.doc 3. Case of the Intervenor is that he is similarly placed just like First Informant, though Mr. Pujari candidly submitted that he has not filed any complaint. Insofar as the present FIR is concerned, it is registered on 06.08.2025 after a delay of 5 months since the period of offence stated therein is from 01.02.2025 to 31.03.2025. 4. According to the First Informant, there was a subsisting partnership business between Applicant and the wife of the Complainant by virtue of a partnership deed dated 27.03.2025 with regard to business of construction, sale and purchase of land and flats. The partnership deed is a notarized agreement which forms the backdrop of the relationship between First Informant and Applicant before me. The said partnership business did not fructify and went into losses. 5. Case of the First Informant - Complainant is that he had paid an amount of Rs.65,39,140/- to Applicant, out of which Rs.15 lakhs was paid by cheque and Rs.51 lakhs was paid in cash. Insofar as payment of cash amount is concerned, it is averred and alleged that it was paid in the presence of an eyewitness called Santosh Bharne, but intriguingly prosecution has failed to record the statement of the said witness, despite his name having been mentioned not only in the FIR but in all subsequent statements which are recorded by the prosecution of similarly placed two other persons. 2 of 6 48.BA.202.2026.doc 6. Insofar as effect of recovery is concerned, the prosecution has recovered gold ornaments worth Rs.20 lakhs which are confiscated, one Kia car which according to prosecution is worth Rs.15 lakhs, one scooter worth Rs.70,000/- and another scooter worth Rs.1 lakh. 7. Mr. Pujari, learned Advocate for the intervenor submitted that insofar as his client is concerned, he had also similarly deposited an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- with the Applicant, out of which Rs.65 lakhs was paid by RTGS and the balance in cash. This particular Intervenor has not filed any complaint. However, his statement has been recorded in the present proceedings by the prosecution. Once again, his payment of cash amount is in the presence of the witness called Santosh Bharne as can be seen from his statement, but the prosecution has not recorded the statement of the said witness for reasons best known to the prosecution. 8. Considering the present FIR before the Court and the recovery effected qua Applicant and most importantly charge-sheet having been filed and no further investigation required to be done and Applicant having spent 14 months in custody, I am of the opinion that further custodial interrogation or custodial remand is not required in the present case. Applicant will otherwise cooperate with the Investigation Officer as and when called for any further investigation. 3 of 6 48.BA.202.2026.doc Further with regard to Mr. Pujari's client, he is free to take steps as available to him in accordance with law. 9. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant – Krunal Ganeshbhai Dekate is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with CR. No.I – 221 of 2025; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Sarkarwada Police Station, once every month, on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall 4 of 6 48.BA.202.2026.doc entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail; (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current residential address and mobile telephone number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change in his residential address or mobile telephone number, as and when such change occurs; and (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicant. 10. 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. 5 of 6 48.BA.202.2026.doc 11. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms. 12. In view of above order, pending Interim Application, if any, is disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.29 19:41:17 +0530