923.ABA-1975.25.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1975 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4382 OF 2025 Jayesh Vasant Jain … Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. …. Respondents ______________________ Mr. B.K. Barve a/w Mr. Sandeep Barve i/by B.K. Barve & Co., for the Applicant. Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam (through VC) for Respondent No.3-original complainant. Mr. Chetan More, API, EOW, Pune City present. ______________________ CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 30 SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Barve, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the Applicant i.e. Accused No.2 is Page 1 PPN PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Digitally signed by PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.10.03 18:23:12 +0530 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.145 of 2025 registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune City for the offences punishable under Section 316(2) and 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution case, from the year 2020 to 2024, there were business transactions between the First Informant and Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi. The First Informant used to sell pharmaceutical products to the Accused No.1 – Sonali Laxman Girigosavi on credit and thereafter, the Accused No. 1 – Sonali Laxman Girigosavi used to pay the said purchase amount to the Applicant. In the year 2024, the Accused No.1 purchased Pharmaceutical Products from the First Informant to the tune of Rs.18,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores Only) and all these pharmaceutical products were supplied on credit and the entire amount is paid by Accused No. 1 – Sonali Laxman Girigosavi to the First Informant and, therefore, there was a relationship of trust between the First Informant and the Accused No.1. 4. As per the further prosecution case, the Accused No.1 introduced the Applicant i.e. Accused No. 2 to the First Informant in or about November 2024. Thereafter certain pharmaceutical Page 2 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC products were purchased by the Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi from the First Informant on credit of an aggregate amount of Rs.4,40,35,905/- and 60 cheques were given by the Accused No.1- Sonali Laxman Girigosavi to the First Informant towards repayment of said amount and the said cheques were dishonored. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3-First Informant that till Accused no.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi was acting independently, the business relationship between the First Informant and Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi were smooth and transparent, however, when she came in contact with the Applicant i.e. Accused no.2, the Accused No.1- Sonali Laxman Girigosavi started cheating the First Informant and accordingly 60 cheques given to the Applicant of said aggregate amount of Rs. 4,40,35,905/- were dishonourned. It is submitted that same modus operandi has been used with some other purchasers and, therefore, several crimes are registered against the Applicant and that the Applicant has committed the crime. Page 3 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC 6. It is submitted by Mr. Barve that the dispute, if any, is of a civil nature. It is submitted that the main allegations are against Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi and she has not been arrested. It is submitted that the allegation against the Applicant is that the said Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi has cheated the First Informant and the Applicant – Accused No.2 has helped her in cheating the First Informant. 7. Mr. Barve relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Binoy Jacob Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 and more particularly on paragraph 8 of the same. 8. It is further submitted that the Applicant is already arrested in another crime. It is submitted that this Court has protected the Applicant by an order dated 4 November 2025 which has been subsequently modified on 10 November 2025. It is, therefore, submitted that the said protection be continued. 9. On the other hand, learned APP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State submits that the offence is very serious and there are antecedents of the same nature against the Applicant and, therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary. 1 1993 SCC OnLine Del 53 Page 4 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC 10. It is submitted by Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel for Respondent No.3-Original Complainant that systematically, the First Informant has been cheated by both the Accused. With respect to the contention that Accused No.1 who is the main Accused has not been arrested, it is submitted that Accused No.1 is suffering from some disease and she is bedridden and, therefore, Accused No.1 has not been arrested. 11. Mr. Barve, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant pointed out a photograph of Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi taken when she was in police station. It is submitted by Mr. Jadhav, learned APP that the Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi attended police station for investigation of some other crime and not for the subject crime. 12. Perusal of the record shows that even as per the prosecution case, there are business relationships between the First Informant and Accused No.1- Sonali Laxman Girigosavi from the year 2020 onwards. In fact, in the year 2024, Accused No.1 had purchased various pharmaceutical products of value of Rs.18,00,00,000/- and the said pharmaceutical products were supplied on credit and the Page 5 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC said amount has been paid by Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi to the First Informant. 13. It is further required to be noted that even as far as the transaction which is the subject matter of the subject F.I.R. is concerned for a sum of Rs.4,40,35,905/-, the cheques were issued by Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi and the said cheques have been dishonoured. The cheques were not issued by the present Applicant. The purchase of the pharmaceutical products is also by Accused No.1. Thus, Accused No.1-Sonali Lakman Girigosavi is the main accused. 14. Although, it is the contention of the Mr. Jadhav, learned APP and also of Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel appearing for the First Informant that Accused No.1 is bedridden, Mr. Barve, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant has pointed out a photograph showing that Accused No.1 has attended the police station and submitted that however, she has not been arrested. Mr. Jadhav, learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that the health of Accused No.1 is not good and therefore, she has not been arrested and as far as the photograph of Accused No.1 is concerned, which shows that Accused No.1 had attended the police Page 6 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC station, he submits that Accused No.1 attended the police station in some other F. I. R. and not with respect to the present crime. Thus, the approach of the Investigating Officer seeking to oppose this Anticipatory Bail Application, as far as the Applicant is concerned, who has a secondary role and to submit that the Accused No.1 is bedridden and, therefore, she has not been arrested is totally contrary to the factual position as the submission raised regarding the said photograph showing that Accused No.1 has attended the police station. Assuming that the Accused No.1 has attended police station in some other F.I.R. clearly shows that the contention raised that as she is bedridden and, therefore, not arrested is contrary to the factual position. 15. All the 60 cheques of an aggregate value of Rs.4,40,35,905/- which have been given to the First Informant were issued by the Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi and the said cheques were dishonoured. The entire prosecution case is on the basis of said dishonoured cheques. 16. In view of the above position, judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Binoy Jacob (supra) where it is stated that there is no doubt that the investigating agency, in its discretion has to decide as to which Accused is to be arrested and at what stage. Page 7 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC However, if main Accused is not arrested then, satisfactory reasons for not arresting the main Accused have to be given by the prosecution. This is the case where the reason given for not arresting the main Accused is that the main Accused i.e., Accused No.1 is bedridden and when a photograph showing that the main Accused has attended the police station is shown, it is contended that main Accused has attended the police station in some other F.I.R., clearly shows that no satisfactory reasons are set out for not arresting the main Accused. In any case, reading of the entire F.I.R. shows that the only allegation against the Applicant is that he has assisted the main Accused i.e., Accused No.1-Sonali Laxman Girigosavi in committing the crime. 17. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly, the following order is passed :- O R D E R (a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R. No.145 of 2025 registered with the Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune City the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two solvent Page 8 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC sureties each in the like amount. (b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when necessary. (c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto. (d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel. (e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner. (f) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. 18. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly. 19. As the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of, nothing Page 9 PPN 923.ABA-1975.25.DOC survives in the Interim Application and same is disposed of. 20. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for consideration of Anticipatory Bail of the Applicant and are of prima facie in nature. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 10 PPN