Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 250

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
PRANAY ATUL MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
ABA/1775/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hrishikesh Subhedar
For the Respondents: Savita M. Yadav

Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy denied where a prima facie case for a grave offense exists, especially if the accused is absconding, as protecting such individuals can hamper investigation and lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405 and 420 read with 34; Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - Section 3 - Anticipatory bail - Factors to be considered include the existence of prima facie reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence, nature and gravity of accusation, severity of punishment, danger of absconding, character and standing of the accused, likelihood of repetition, risk of witness influence, and the possibility of justice being thwarted (Para 7).

(B) Pre-arrest bail - Absconding accused - An accused who is absconding and unavailable for investigation is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail (Para 9).

(C) Custodial Interrogation - Absence of necessity for custodial interrogation is not a standalone ground to grant anticipatory bail; the primary considerations remain the prima facie case, the nature of the offence, and the severity of the punishment (Para 10).

(D) Exceptional Remedy - Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and should not be granted routinely, particularly in cases of grave offences where interim protection may lead to a miscarriage of justice or hamper investigation through tampering or distraction of evidence (Para 11).

Facts of the case:
An application for pre-arrest bail was filed by a former manager of an investment company accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The prosecution alleged that the company lured investors to obtain personal loans in their names, which were then misappropriated. Investigation revealed that approximately Rs. 8,33,36,063/- was transferred into the applicant's personal bank account. Additionally, several luxury vehicles were transferred to the applicant by the main accused after the registration of the FIR. The respondent-state opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant was absconding and custodial interrogation was necessary to trace defrauded funds used to purchase properties.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in a serious, pre-planned crime. The receipt of huge sums of money in a personal account and the transfer of luxury vehicles suggested connivance with the main accused. The court further noted that the applicant was absconding, making him ineligible for the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail.

Issues: Whether the applicant, accused of grave financial fraud and allegedly absconding, is entitled to the exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that given the gravity of the offense and the prima facie evidence of misappropriation, the applicant did not qualify for pre-arrest bail. The court reasoned that since the applicant was absconding, the protection of anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation. The court emphasized that the prima facie case and nature of the crime outweigh the argument regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation.

Result: The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-AS:4985 907-ABA-1775-2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1775 OF 2025

Pranay Atul Mehta …Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Hrishikesh Subhedar (through Video Conferencing), for the

Applicant.

Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Arif Attar, Headconstable, attached to EOW, Pune, present.

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

PRONONCEDON: 30^th JANUARY 2026

UPLOADED ON : 31^st JANUARY 2026

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Subhedar, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection

with C.R. No.84 of 2023 registered with Bundgarden Police

Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 420

read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the

Page 1

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 12:57:05 :::

##PAGE2##

907-ABA-1775-2025.DOC

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial

Establishments) Act, 1999.

3. Mr. Subhedar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant

argued the matter for considerable time. He submitted that the

Applicant is not involved in the crime. He relied on the Applicant’s

statement recorded concerning complaint filed by the Applicant

(Exhibit-D Page 90 to 95). He submitted that in fact the Applicant

is the victim. He submits that although in the account of the

Applicant about 17 persons deposited various amounts aggregating

to about Rs.8,33,36,063/- the said amounts are immediately

transferred in the account of “Ashtavinayak Investment Company”.

He submits that although the main accused i.e. Sevalkumar Nadar

and his wife Sneha Nadar transferred about 5 vehicles in his name

including two Mercedes Cars and one BMW Car, however, the said

vehicles were transferred in his favour for partly repaying various

amount invested by him in the said company. He therefore,

submitted that Anticipatory Bail Application be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP strongly opposes

the Anticipatory Bail Application. She pointed out various

Page 2

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 12:57:05 :::

##PAGE3##

907-ABA-1775-2025.DOC

contentions raised in the affidavit of Mr. Dattatray Bhapkar, Police

Inspector attached to Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.1, Pune

City, Pune. She also points out the annexures annexed to the said

affidavit. She submitted that the offence is serious and custodial

interrogation is necessary.

5. As per the prosecution case, the Applicant is not named in

the FIR. However, the Applicant’s role is revealed during the

investigation. It is the prosecution case that the Applicant was

working as Manager of “Ashtavinayak Investment Company”. Mr.

Selvakumar Nadar was the main person concerned with the said

company. There are total 9 accused. Five accused persons were

working as Direct Selling Agents and/or Assistant Managers. The

modus operandi in which the said company is operating is taking

personal loans from different banks in the name of many persons

under the pretext of investing the said amount and not paying the

installments of the said loans and cheated the said persons. The

present Applicant’s role is set out in paragraph Nos.7 to 15 of the

affidavit dated 22^nd December 2025 filed by Mr. Dattatray Bhapkar,

Police Inspector, EOW, Unit-1, Pune. The said paragraph Nos.7 to

15 are as under:

Page 3

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 12:57:05 :::

##PAGE4##

907-ABA-1775-2025.DOC

“7. I say that the investigation in the said matter

was assigned to me. I say that during the

investigation, Applicant/Accused Pranay Mehta was

working as Manager in Ashtavinayak Investment

Company under main accused Selvakumar Nadar

from February 2018 to October 2019. During this

period and even after leaving the job, accused

Pranay Mehta lured investors by promising hig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document