Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J.
Dhawal Kiran Shah - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 5122 of 2024, Interim Application No. 368 of 2025
Decided On : 28-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Prashant P. Raul, Chandarani Gore, Harsh Khot
For the Respondent: Supriya I. Kak
For the Intervenor : Kunal D. Ambulkar, P.S. Sanap
Economic offences with multiple victims, involving forging documents and impersonation, warrant strict scrutiny to prevent justice obstruction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 - Bail application for offences of cheating and forgery - The prosecution alleges orchestrated fraud involving multiple victims, fabricated documents, and impersonation of a government officer. (Paras 1, 24, 25, 34)
(B) Legal principles regarding bail: Bail is not to be granted if there is a reasonable apprehension of influence on witnesses or tampering with evidence. (Paras 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant allegedly defrauded complainants under the guise of legitimate business transactions involving falsified work orders from Kendriya Bhandar, resulting in financial loss exceeding crores. (Paras 5, 18, 22)
Findings of Court:
The applicant actively participated in a fraudulent scheme aimed at misappropriating funds, showing criminal intent and collusion with co-accused. (Paras 24, 26)
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail despite serious allegations of systematic fraud and the risk of obstructing the investigation. (Paras 34, 35)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that economic offences with multiple victims require stringent scrutiny; bail can be denied based on potential implications on justice and investigation integrity. (Paras 34)
Result: Bail application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. By the present application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.801 of 2023, registered at Park Site Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 23 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ("IPC").
2. As per the prosecution’s case, one Nimesh Balvantrai Dani lodged a complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation against the present applicant and co-accused persons. The complainant claims to be the owner of Pinocol Source LLP. According to him, one Atul Modi, associated with his firm, met Vaishali Manjrekar, who introduced herself as Superintendent of Kendriya Bhandar, Goa, in January 2023. She was accompanied by Abhishek Dani, the complainant’s son. It is stated that Vaishali showed them some authorization documents and expressed the requirement of various stationery items for Kendriya Bhandar, Goa. She further informed that a work order would be issued and the said items had to be delivered to Altinho, Panaji, Goa within 20–25 days.
3. The complainant claims to have verified the name of the co- accused on the official website of Kendriya Bhandar, Goa. It is further alleged that the co-accused imposed a condition that the stationery must be compulsorily purchased from Rushabdev Ventures Pvt. Ltd., a firm known to her. Acting upon such assurance, the complainant sent a quotation to Rushabdev Ventures Pvt. Ltd., which is operated by the present applicant Dhawal Shah.
4. It is further alleged that on 20th February 2023, the complainant’s firm sent a quotation for an amount of Rs. 4,22,37,384/-. A work order for the same amount was thereafter issued under the name of Kendriya Bhandar. As per the prosecution, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was thereafter collected from the complainant under the pretext of registration, and a receipt was issued on Kendriya Bhandar’s letterhead. Subsequently, an additional demand for stationery worth Rs. 4,42,40,522/- was made. Since the complainant’s firm lacked the required working capital, it took assistance from another firm, New Bharat Cylinders LLP, for procuring the said goods from Rushabdev Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and delivering them to Kendriya Bhandar, Goa.
5. A purchase order was issued on 24th February 2023, and as per mutual understanding, Ketan Doshi from New Bharat Cylinders LLP made the initial payments, which the complainant was to repay later. On 5th March 2023, the applicant allegedly handed over a delivery challan of Shree Sai Krupa Transport, Nashik, to the co-accused for delivery of the goods at the designated location in Goa. The delivery was made via Tempo bearing No. MH-15-FV-1299, and toll receipts and photographs of the same are part of the investigation record. It is further alleged that tax invoices were submitted to Kendriya Bhandar and signed by Vaishali Manjrekar. During this entire transaction, Abhishek Dani, the complainant’s son, was actively involved in liaisoning with Vaishali.
6. The prosecution states that New Bharat Cylinders LLP purchased the goods from Rushabdev Ventures Pvt. Ltd., which was to be routed through the complainant’s firm to Kendriya Bhandar. The applicant, on behalf of Rushabdev Ventures Pvt. Ltd., raised a payment demand from New Bharat Cylinders LLP. Based on that demand, a total sum of Rs. 3,24,78,997/- was allegedly transferred to Rushabdev Ventures in two instalments. However, no payment was made by Vaishali Manjrekar or any representative of Kendriya Bhandar towards the supplied goods.
7. Despite repeated follow-ups for payment, Vaishali Manjrekar allegedly kept giving evasive responses and continued to give false assurances of payment. Suspicious about the delay, the complainant sent the copies of work orders and tax invoices to the Vigilance Department of Kendriya Bhandar, New Delhi as well as the Mumbai office. In response, an official communication wa
