IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 28 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1279 OF 2026 SUSHANT SHARADCHANDRA PHADNIS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Keral Mehta, Advocate i/b Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant (through VC) Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the informant WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1289 OF 2026 SHILPA SUSHANT PHADNIS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Keral Mehta, Advocate i/b Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the informant CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No. 0329/2026, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act. 2. The first informant, Kishor Barandwal, lodged a report with 28 aba1279.26.odt 1 of 6 2026:BHC-AUG:39446 Mukundwadi Police Station on 08.06.2026, stating that he had retired from the Army and intended to invest his retirement benefits. He, along with his relative Pawankumar Pawar, met his friend Nitin Gotpagar at Kolhapur in July 2021. According to the informant, they went to the office of K to Z Company, where 3 to 4 persons were present. Nitin introduced them to Mr. Jalil Kirangi and others. Jalil, Sachin and Vaibhav were stated to be Directors of the said company. They provided information regarding the company and assured the informant of returns on his investment at the rate of 15% per annum. The informant further states that, in the meantime, he was introduced to applicant-Sushant Phadnis (accused No.5), who is a Chartered Accountant. It is alleged that applicant-Sushant also participated in discussions regarding the affairs of K to Z Company, as well as the investment and returns thereon. According to the informant, applicant-Sushant assured him of good returns and, relying upon such assurance, he invested money with K to Z Company. From time to time, he invested a total sum of Rs.1,24,00,000/-. It is stated that some returns were received by him till 19.10.2023. Thereafter, since no further returns were received, the informant approached co-accused Jalil. 3. The co-accused informed the informant about establishing another company in the name of Nextech Vision Pvt. Ltd., wherein the present applicants were Directors, and stated that the returns on the investment would be paid through the said company. Since a total amount of 28 aba1279.26.odt 2 of 6 Rs.2,37,78,550/- was due and payable in terms of the agreement dated 02.01.2023 executed between the informant and co-accused Jalil, cheques amounting to Rs.50 lakhs were issued, which were dishonoured. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid offences came to be registered. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that, though the allegations in the First Information Report indicate that applicant-Sushant participated in discussions regarding the investment, the said allegation has no substance in view of the agreement dated 12.02.2024 executed between the informant and co-accused Jalil, which indicates that the applicant had no concern with the said transaction or the investments made by the informant. It is further submitted that the informant had executed an affidavit dated 27.02.2024, clearly stating that the present applicants had no concern with the said crime or with the investment made by the informant with K to Z Company. It is therefore submitted that, on the basis of the documents placed on record, the applicants have no nexus with the crime in question and are, therefore, entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the said submissions. Learned Advocate for the informant submitted that the affidavit executed by the informant on 27.02.2024 was executed on the assurance given by the applicants that the money would be repaid and, therefore, the said affidavit by itself would not establish the innocence of the 28 aba1279.26.odt 3 of 6 applicants. It is further submitted that the agreement between applicant- Sushant and co-accused Jalil is a sham document and that the said document was executed with a view to transferring the money earned through the alleged crime. It is further submitted that, unless the applicants are taken into custody, effective investigation into the crime would not be possible. 6. Learned APP also opposed the grant of relief to the applicants by submitting that there are allegations against the applicants in the First Information Report which prima facie indicate their complicity in the crime. During the course of hearing, this Court specifically made a query to the learned APP as to whether there was any evidence to show that the agreements between applicant-Sushant and co-accused Jalil, namely, the agreements dated 29.04.2022 relating to purchase of properties and the agreement dated 10.01.2024 relating to cancellation thereof, were sham or bogus documents, or whether there was any evidence to show the alleged money trail, as suggested by the learned Advocate for the informant. Learned APP, upon going through the investigation papers, answered the said query in the negative. 7. Applicant-Sushant is a Chartered Accountant and there are allegations against him that he induced the informant to invest money with the co- accused in K to Z Company. Apart from this allegation, it is also alleged that applicant-Sushant assured repayment of the money and that the co-accused 28 aba1279.26.odt 4 of 6 informed the informant that the money would be paid through Nextech Vision Pvt. Ltd., which is owned by the applicants. Though such allegations have been made, they are not supported by any material evidence. On the contrary, the agreement executed between the informant and co-accused Jalil indicates that there was no inducement on the part of the present applicants in respect of the investment made by the informant with the co-accused. 8. Moreover, there is an affidavit executed by the informant himself on 27.02.2024, indicating that the applicants had no concern with the crime in question. In the light of these facts, there is no reference to these documents in the First Information Report. Though it is now sought to be argued on behalf of the learned Advocate for the informant that the affidavit was executed in the hope of receiving repayment of the money, in the absence of any reference to or disclosure of the said documents in the First Information Report, this Court finds it difficult to accept the said submission. In any case, the agreement executed between the informant and co-accused Jalil prima facie indicates that there was no inducement on the part of the applicants in relation to the crime in question. 9. In any case, there is no allegation whatsoever against applicant-Shilpa Phadnis (accused No.4). There is not even an allegation against her that she induced the informant to invest money in the company of the accused. Though there are allegations against applicant-Sushant to that effect, the 28 aba1279.26.odt 5 of 6 documents placed on record indicate otherwise. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the liberty of the applicants deserves to be protected. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1289/2026 is allowed in terms of interim relief order dated 20.07.2026. (ii) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1279/2026 is allowed in following terms: (a) In the event of arrest of applicant-Sushant Sharadchandra Phadnis in connection with Crime No. 0329/2026, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (b) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (c) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (d) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (e) He further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. 10. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 28 aba1279.26.odt 6 of 6