Bombay High Court
Sunil Suryakant Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21067
1025.25aba
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
971 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1025 OF 2025
Sunil Suryakant Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
.....
Mr Arun S. Lomte, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr A. M. Phule, APP for respondent/State.
.....
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 06 AUGUST 2025
P. C. :
1. This Application was heard by this Court on few
occasions in the past. Notice was issued by an order dated 27 June
2025. Thereafter, by the last order of 5 August 2025, the Court, on
again hearing the parties, expressed a prima facie opinion, pursuant to
which the Court is called upon to pass appropriate orders.
2. The present proceedings relate to Crime No.0159 of 2025
registered by the Pathari Police Station, Dist. Parbhani. The FIR was
lodged on 01 April 2025 at 17:43 hours. The alleged offence is under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short ) and the
date of occurrence of the offence is shown on 21 April 2024, in respect
of which the information was received at the concerned Police Station
1025.25aba
(2)
on 1 April 2025 at 17:17 hours, after which the said FIR was lodged.
As noted in the FIR, there is only one accused person i.e. Sunil
Suryakant Rathod, who is present Applicant before the Court. The
informant is one Gopinath Rahu Rathod, aged 72 years, who is a
retired teacher.
3. To appreciate the factual matrix, it would be necessary to
set out the the contents of the FIR as under :-
The informant is 72 years old retired teacher, having four
daughters and one son, who is employee in the Police Force at Delhi.
He resides with his wife in the village and is having his house at
Pathari and he mortgaged that house for the marriage of his grand
daughter. In order to redeem that mortgage of the said house, his son
had given the informant cash of Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2023. On
15 April 2024, the Informant alongwith his nephew i.e. present
Applicant went to Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Branch Pathari and
deposited amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in his account with the said Bank.
After he deposited the amount, the bank issued him an ATM Card in an
envelope. The Applicant set the PIN Number of that ATM Card as
2089 and at that time, the Applicant put the ATM Card of State Bank
of India in the name of one Ganesh Nagare in the same envelope, in
1025.25aba
(3)
which the ATM Card was given to the Informant. The Applicant gave
that envelope containing that ATM card of SBI Bank in the name of
the said Ganesh Nagare to the Informant and the accused kept with
him the new ATM Card of the Informant.
On 16 April 2024, on the instruction of the Informant, the
Applicant transferred through RTGS amount of Rs.40,000/- in the
name of the Informant's daughter-in-law, namely, Sunita Prakash
Rathod. Thereafter, different amounts on different dates were
deposited and transferred to at the instructions of the Informant by the
present Applicant, from the account of the Informant in the said Bank.
When the Informant was trying to withdraw the amount from the
Bank, at that time, he realized that he had no amount in his bank
account. The Informant told the bank employees that he had Rs. 10 to
11 Lakhs in his account which was not there. At that time, the bank
employees informed him that he had withdrawn the amounts through
ATM Card. Thereafter, the Informant and the Applicant came back to
the house, checked the envelope and saw the ATM Card which was
there in the envelope. At that time, the Informant realized that the
ATM Card was not of Maharashtra Gramin Bank where he had his
account, but was of SBI Bank issued in the name of one Ganesh
Nagare. Thereafter, the Informant visited his Branch and from the
1025.25aba
(4)
statement of accounts of his ATM transactions, it was disclosed the last
transactions through ATM Card was done on 27 February 2025 at
Sonpeth in Vaijnath Sahakari Bank and an amount of Rs.1,000/- was
withdrawn. Thereafter, the Informant alongwith his another nephew
one Bandu Haribhau Rathod, with the help of the Police saw the
CCTV footage of ATM transaction where the Applicant was clearly
seen withdrawing the amounts. In such circumstances, the Informant
lodged the complaint that from 21 April 2024 to 27 February 2025, the
Applicant misappropriated his account by withdrawing a total sum of
Rs.11,90,000/- (Eleven Lakh Ninety Thousand) in his absence, thus
cheating the Informant, pursuant to which, the complaint was reported
and the FIR was lodged.
4. The Applicant would contend that he is falsely implicated
in the said offence, with which he has no connection. There is nothing
to show as to how the Applicant received the amount of
Rs.11,90,000/-, allegedly belonging to the Informant. The Informant is
trying to falsely roping the Applicant due to some family dispute
between them.
5. A bare perusal of the complaint and the FIR would reveal
that the manner in which the amounts have been withdrawn by the
1025.25aba
(5)
Applicant from the account of the Informant with the Maharashtra
Gramin Bank by misusing his ATM Card on a number of occasions, is
clear as crystal. The CCTV footage as contended by learned APP Mr
Phule, would clearly indicate that the Applicant is seen withdrawing
such amounts. There is no reason to disbelieve this even at the
preliminary stage. The Applicant was all the time with the Informant
and was undertaking monetary transaction on the instructions of the
Informant who reposed faith in his nephew i.e. the Applicant in
entrusting such responsibility on the Applicant. However, the
Applicant has clearly breached the trust of the Informant taking
advantage of his old age by surreptitiously changing the ATM Card to
that of another Bank, not disclosing this to the Informant and went on
withdrawing amounts from the Informant's account, completely
behind his back. This continued until the Informant realized that his
hard earned money in the said account which was predominantly to
use to redeem the mortgage of his house, given by his son was totally
wiped off.
6. As rightly submitted by the prosecution through the
learned APP Mr Phule, this is a clear case of cheating from inception
as the Applicant right from the word go had the complete knowledge
1025.25aba
(6)
that wrongful loss would be caused to the Informant and wrongful gain
to the Applicant. It is apparent that the Applicant dishonestly induced
the vulnerable Informant to deliver the property thereby attracting
Section 420 of the IPC. It was by misusing the said ATM Card of the
Informant in the possession of the Applicant which was used to
withdraw the amount time and again by the Applicant from the
Informant's bank account on various occasions, to the tune of
Rs.11,90,000/-, reducing the balance in the said account to almost nil.
This is how the Applicant with a clear intent systematically cheated the
Informant taking advantage of his old age, their relations, breaching
the trust reposed in him by the Informant.
7. Mr Phule, learned APP whilst relying on case
diary/investigation papers, would urge that the Applicant has a
criminal history. In this regard, he would submit that there is an FIR in
Crime No.0583/2024 registered by the Pathari Police Station, Dist.
Parbhani under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 189(2), 191(2) and 190
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It appears that this crucial fact is not
disclosed by the Applicant in his Application, which under the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.1400/2025, dated 03 April
1025.25aba
(7)
2025) and Kaushal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave
Petition (Cri.) No.2254/2025, dated 18 July 2025) is now mandated.
Thus, Mr Phule would be justified in urging that in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, the Applicant should not be
granted an extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail which is an
exception and not the rule.
8. Considering the above, applying the parameters by the
Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.
K. and Another, AIR (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1529, a clear prima
facie is made out against the Applicant, which is considered to be sine
qua non in the adjudication of ABA. Not just this, but as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR SC
3806, physical custody of the Applicant in the given factual
complexion would be necessary, so as to elicit the complete
information known solely to the Applicant and thereby take the
investigation to its logical conclusion. Also, the prosecution would
submit that this Applicant has attempted to flee from justice.
Accordingly, the Court passes the following order :-
ORDER
Anticipatory Bail Application No.1025 of 2025 is Rejected.
1025.25aba
9. The observations above are prima facie for the purposes
of adjudicating this ABA.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
sjk
