1 ABA 446+436.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO.436 OF 2026 [Sandeep Dipak Ghose .vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Awadhutwadi, Yavatmal, Tah. & Distt. Yavatmal] AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO.446 OF 2026 [Deepak Maruti Ghanwat and one .vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Awadhutwadi, Yavatmal, Tah. & Distt. Yavatmal] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. T.U. Tathod, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Bhalerao, Advocate for Applicants. Ms. S.N. Thakur, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. Mr. B.D. Vora, Advocate for Complainant/Assist to Prosecution. …………….. ………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. RESERVED ON : 30.06.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 07.07.2026. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both these applications are arising out of Crime No.0391/2026 registered against the applicants with Police Station Awadhutwadi, District-Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, 1999. 3. In the present case, the case of the prosecution, in short, is that accused no.1-Arvind Chaudhari has floted the scheme of investment under Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune. The scheme floated by accused no.1-Arvind Chandrakant Chaudhari along with Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited is 2 ABA 446+436.26.odt that if the investors invest a minimum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the company for one year, in return, he would get an interest of 4.5% on the invested amount. For showing authentication of this scheme, Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, used to give a security cheque of the amount to the investors who had invested the amount. In pursuance of the same, Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune is also executing an agreement with the investors, wherein all the terms and conditions of the investment are recorded in the agreement. The said agreement was duly signed by Arvind Chaudhari on behalf of Bhuankur Agro Pride India Private Limited, Pune. 4. The accused No.1-Arvind Chaudhari, to implement this scheme, has appointed the Agents/Sales Officers throughout the Maharashtra. For Yavatmal District, he has appointed several Sales Officers, including the present applicants. The role attributed to this Sales Officers to collect the amount of investment from the investors and deposit the same in the account of the company. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that one of the applicant in the matter, namely, Sandeep Ghose, was in charge of all the agents in Yavatmal District. He was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the investments made by the investors were deposited into the account of the company and also look that the investors should get their returns as promised under the scheme. 6. It is also the case of the prosecution which was revealed during the investigation that all the Sales Officer, who collected the money from investors and deposited in the account of 3 ABA 446+436.26.odt company, used to receive 2.5% commission. As such, under the scheme, the Sales Officers are appointed on commission basis casting duty on them to deposit the entire amount to the Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune. 7. In this background, the offence came to be registered against the present applicants on the complaint of one Nilesh s/o Laxmanrao Rapartiwar. The complainant alleged in his complaint that as per the scheme introduced by Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune, he has deposited the amount in Axis Bank, Branch at Ambegaon, Pune bearing Account No.925020004488668 which is operated by Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune. He has alleged that applicant Sandeep Ghose has induced him to invest in the scheme and thereby he has invested the amount in the scheme. According to the complainant, in total he has invested Rs.11,00,000/- under the scheme. The complainant in his complaint has given the details of various investors, who has invested the amount around Rs.10,00,000/- each or above under the scheme through the Sales Officers appointed in the Yavatmal District. It is thus case of the complainant that for initial days, they received the monetary benefits as assured under the scheme of Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited. 8. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that in the month of June-2025, he received a whatsapp message from one Shukla stating that Bhuankur Investment Company is a fraud company and, therefore, all the investors should withdraw their invested amount from the said company. Therefore, the complainant initially approached to the Branch Advisor namely, 4 ABA 446+436.26.odt Devendra Rapartiwar and told him about the message. The said Devendra Rapartiwar has informed the complainant that the person namely, Shukla is a blackmailer and since long, he is trying to blackmail the company and, therefore, he should neglect such message. The complainant, thereafter, to satisfy himself made contact with the accused No.1-Arvind Chaudhari through telephone and made enquiry as to why the amount is not disbursed to them as per the scheme. The said Arvind Chaudhari informed him that due to some technical reasons, the payment is stopped, but same will be immediately started. It is also assured that the message from Arvind Chaudhari that payment will be given immediately will be circulated shortly to all the investors. The complainant further states that as the doubt is created in his mind about the company, therefore, along with Gajendra Ganveer, Virendra Singh Chauhan, he went to the office of Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune and met Arvind Chaudhari and Ravindra Patil and requested to permit them to withdraw the amount which they have invested. At that time, Ravindra Patil and Arvind Chaudhari told them that Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune has decided to sale out some property and after sale out of that property, till Diwali of that year, entire amount will be refunded. To rely on the assurance given by them, Ravindra Patil has handed over his passport to the informant. 9. According to the complainant, they have waited for a considerable period, but they could not get refund of amount which they have invested nor received interest as assured under the scheme and, therefore, the complaint is lodged against the accused persons in the matter. 5 ABA 446+436.26.odt 10. On the complaint of the informant, the criminal law was set in the motion by the investigation officer. As per the prosecution, they have recorded the statement of the witnesses which according to learned APP clearly indicate that the present applicants were having active involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The total amount allegedly misappropriated and siphoned off by the applicants and other accused persons is around Rs.3,83,50,000/-. According to APP, the material collected during the investigation shows that the applicants are involved in the alleged fraudulent scheme. During the investigation, the bank accounts of the applicants were seized. As per the details of the bank statement of the company and the accused persons, it is revealed that the account was handled by one of the complainant namely, Sandeep Ghose. The transaction of large amount shows that same was received from the investors in their account and same was intermittently transferred to the accused no.1, but many transaction shows that amount was transferred in other various accounts. 11. In respect of Applicant-Ravindra Sadashiv Kanadje, it is alleged that he is operating multiple business entities. The funds collected from the investors on the account of said company were diverted to his personal account and, thereafter, transferred to the account of various other firms owned, controlled and managed by him. In respect of applicant namely, Deepak Ghanwat, during the investigation, it is found that he has induced the investors to invest the amount under the scheme. The bank entries shows that he has deposited the substantial amount in his account instead of depositing the same in the company. 6 ABA 446+436.26.odt 12. In view of above complaints and the investigation which is going on in the matter, it is the submission of the prosecution that the custodial interrogation of the present applicants is necessary to reach to the logical conclusion in the matter and to trace out the modus operandi and the other factors which are involved in the matter. 13. The applicants, who approached before this court, have pointed out that in the present case, the complainant himself is the Sales Officer of the Company. It is further pointed out that his brother namely, Devendra Rapartiwar is the Branch Advisor at Yavatmal. As such, he was aware about the scheme and, therefore, on his accusation, applicants cannot be prosecuted. According to applicant, informant is also equally responsible as he was also working as a sales- officer and obtained the money from investors. The accusation against the applicants is nothing but out of personal grudge of the complainant and, therefore, this complaint cannot be relied upon as a gospel truth. 14. The applicants have pointed out that they were operating the scheme under the directions of accused no.1 Arvind Chaudhari. The role of the applicants was to collect the amount from the investors and deposit the same in the account of the company. Various investors used to give the amount in cash to them and, therefore, same used to be deposited in their accounts and then transferred to the account of the company. All the agreements, which are executed under the scheme, are signed and executed by accused no.1-Arvind Chaudhari. Therefore, the present applicants, who are working as a Sales Officers, cannot be said to be the main accused in the matter. According to them, 7 ABA 446+436.26.odt they are the employees and performing the duties as per the instructions of accused no.1-Arvind Chaudhari. It is further tried to point out by the applicants that the complainant, who has alleged that he has deposited the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in the account of Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune bearing Account No.925020004488668 of Axis Bank, Branch Ambegaon, Pune during December is patently false and baseless. According to the information received to the applicants the said account was activated on 30.3.2025, whereas the complainant is stating that amount was deposited by him before that date. Therefore, the allegation which made by him falsify the case. 15. The applicants further stated that in the present case, the investigation officer is trying to book the present applicants without considering the other material which was made available to them in the matter. To substantiate this fact, applicant namely, Sandeep Ghose has pointed out that when he got knowledge about the message which was circulated on whatsapp, as stated in the complaint, he is the person, who initially approached before the District Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal and lodged the complaint and pointed out, as to how, the non-applicants in his complaint are involved in the matter. But according to him, the District Superintendent of Police till date did not take any action of his complaint dated 1.4.2026. 16. Having heard both the counsels at length, it could be relevant to first consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases where economic offences are involved. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy .vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, the 8 ABA 446+436.26.odt Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paras 34 and 35 as under : "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 17. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad .vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Para Nos.23 as under : “23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal this court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC page 371, paragraph 5) 5.... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic 9 ABA 446+436.26.odt offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.” 18. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office .vs. Aditya Sarda, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 764, has occasioned to consider somewhat the identical case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by taking into consideration the majority of the judgment on economic offences, has observed in Para 23 as under : “23. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country. The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistants. When after the investigation, a charge sheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the court taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences. 10 ABA 446+436.26.odt In such cases when the court has reason to believe that the person against whom the warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant could not be executed, the concerned court would be perfectly justified in initiating the proclamation proceedings against him under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The High Courts should also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not casually, considering the anticipatory bail application of such accused.” 19. In respect of power to be exercised while deciding the anticipatory bail, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep .vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and others, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 391 has held that while considering the application for anticipatory bail, if the court is of the opinion that where no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, cannot by itself be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The court must consider the prima facie case put up against the accused and the nature of the offences along with severity of the punishment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard made specific observation in Para 12 as under : “12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument 11 ABA 446+436.26.odt being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the factors and parameters that needs to be kept in mind by the court while deciding the anticipatory bail are summarized in the case of Pratibha Manchanda and another .vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2023 (8) SCC 181 by making the observation in Para 21 as under : “21. The relief of anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting 12 ABA 446+436.26.odt public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 21. In the light of this factual and legal position and the perusal of the entire record, which is made available by the learned APP, it is revealed from the complaint which is lodged by the informant that under the scheme of Bhuankur Agro India Private Limited, Pune, the amount was invested by the investors through the Sales Officers like applicants. The applicants seem to have deposited that amount to the account of the company and investors received the benefits as assured under the scheme. But in the month of June, there was one whatsapp message was circulated stating that Bhuankur Investment Company is a fraud company and all the investors should withdraw their amount which they have invested. After some period, company stopped the benefit under the scheme to investors. It is also clear from the complaint that his main grievance is against the accused no.1- Arvind Chaudhari to whom he has personally visited and the said accused no.1 has assured him that within a short period the payment will be done under the scheme, but as same was not received, the complaint is filed. As such, looking to the complaint, it is clear that there is no role specifically attributed to the present applicants in the matter. The whole allegations are against the accused no.1. 13 ABA 446+436.26.odt 22. In the present matter what is important to note that during the course of investigation reveals a critical facts. According to the learned APP, under the scheme, the sale officers immediately after the receipt of amount were suppose to deposit the same in the account of company. But most of the amount which was received in the account of applicants are not transferred to the account of company. These entries, according to prosecution, needs further investigation. 23. In the present case, considering the progress of investigation and documents collected by them in the matter, it is clear that substantial amount is involved in the matter. The investigation, which is going on, is at the preliminary stage. To conduct the free and impartial enquiry, the investigation is required a free hand so that the investigation officer can reach to the logical conclusion in the matter and the amount, which are invested by the investors, could be searched out and if possible, same can be refunded in the matter. 24. It would be relevant to consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State REP. By The C.B.I. .vs. Anil Sharma, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Para 6 of the judgment as under : “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation 14 ABA 446+436.26.odt would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 25. In the present matter, one more thing is required to be added that the investigation seems to be moving around the present applicants only. In the present matter, one of the applicant Sandeep Ghose has lodged the complaint before registration of offence to the District Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, but the investigation officer seems to be totally negligent to looked into that complaint. During the course of hearing, this fact was specifically brought to the notice of the prosecution. However, till the date of final argument, there is no positive reply from the prosecution, as to why, the enquiry in that regard was not made in the matter. Therefore, investigation officer who is expected to investigate in the offence by considering the entire data more particularly when amount of public at large involved in the crime. 26. This Court is alive of the fact that investors, having acted in good faith, invested their hard-earned capital with the expectation of legitimate returns under the scheme. For that 15 ABA 446+436.26.odt purpose investigation must reach to its logical conclusion. At this stage, no conclusion can be drawn in the matter. 27. In the light of above factual as well as legal position, this court do not want to interfere in the matter, more particularly because of the fact that investigation is at preliminary stage and in the offence huge amount of investors is involved in the matter. Therefore, both the applications stand rejected. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) Gulande