Bombay High Court
Jagdish Bhagwandas Ahuja vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:42963
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.615 OF 2025
Jagdish Bhagwandas Ahuja ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2233 OF 2025
(Application for Intervention)
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.615 OF 2025
Priyanka Bansal ....Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Jagdish Bhagwandas Ahuja ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Tapan Thatte, with Ms. Bhavya Shah i/by A&P Partners,
for the Applicant.
Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Anand R. Kandoi, for the Intervenor.
I.O. -Mr. Sachin Survase, API, Dindoshi Police Station, present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
RESERVED ON: 01st OCTOBER 2025
PRONOUNCED
ON: 07th OCTOBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection
with FIR No.1102 of 2022 dated 7th November 2022,
registered with the Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai for the
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Section 3 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999 ('MPID' Act).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Applicant
is a partner in M/s. Ahuja Properties & Associates, M/s. Ahuja
Properties, M/s. Ahuja Developers and M/s. Ahuja Properties
& Developers. In 2014, the Applicant and his son, Mr. Gautam
Jagdish Ahuja lured the family members of the Complainant
to invest money in the firms of the Applicant. They were
assured returns of 21% p.a. on the said investement. On 31 st
January 2014, the Intervenor's husband invested an amount
of Rs.15 Lakhs from the account of the HUF of Bansal Family.
On 31st March 2015, another amount of Rs.25 Lakhs was
deposited with M/s Ahuja Properties and Associates by way of
RTGS. The Intervenor herein learnt that even her father-in-
law had deposited an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs from his
individual account and another Rs.50 Lakhs from the Bansal
Family's HUF account with M/s Ahuja Properties and
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
Associates. The Applicant issued four receipts to the Bansals.
Gautam Ahuja, the Applicant's son, has also signed on the said
bill of exchange/receipt. To his credit, the Applicant gave the
promised returns to the Bansal Family upto January 2016.
Thereafter, the returns stopped. The cheques issued to the
members of Bansal Family were dishonoured. Thus, the
Intervenor and her family members filed proceedings under
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the Applicant
and his partnership firms before the Borivali Metropolitan
Magistrate Court. The learned Magistrate directed the Police
to register an FIR against the Applicant and his son, Gautam.
3. The Applicant filed a bail application before the
Designated Court under the MPID Act, the City Civil &
Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. However, by an order dated
17th December 2024, the said bail application was rejected.
Hence, the Applicant has filed the present bail application for
the reliefs as prayed.
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
4. Mr. Tapan Thatte, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant, has placed on record a compilation of documents
including the charge-sheet and an order dated 28 th April 2025
passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.620 of
2025 wherein the Applicant is enlarged on bail in FIR No.143
of 2022. Thus, the thrust of Mr. Thatte's argument is that this
Court in the same offences registered with the Economic
Offences Wing (EOW), General Cheating-3 (Initially
registered as C.R.No.961 of 2022 with the Santacruz Police
Station) has already granted bail to the Applicant. Mr. Thatte
further argued that prosecuting the Applicant for the similar
offence is nothing but double jeopardy. He also argued that
some amounts have already been returned to the
Complainants and hence, no purpose is served by continuing
the Applicant's custody. He further submits that the Applicant
and his son are declared insolvent by an order dated 24 th June
2022 passed by this Court. He submits that the Applicant is in
custody since 19th December, 2022, and has served 2 and half
years in custody. He further submits that the complaint is of
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
civil nature and both the complainant and the investors are at
liberty to file their respective claims before the Official
Assignee appointed by this Court. He submits that in any case
no offence under Section 420 is made out.
5. Per contra, Ms.Bhosale, learned APP representing
the State has brought to my attention an Affidavit dated 13th
March, 2023 affirmed by Sachin Ramesh Survase, the
Assistant Police Inspector attached to the Dindoshi Police
Station, Mumbai. It is averred in the said Affidavit that on
investigation, it is found that the present Applicant accepted
money from the complainant and other investors by
misrepresenting their financial position and promised
unrealistic high returns on their investments. An amount of
Rs.1,15,00,000/- is accepted from the complainant by the
Applicant and his firm. The Affidavit also avers that the
present Applicant has similar criminal antecedants. There is a
list of 9 cases against the Applicant and his son Gautam
pending before various Courts. Ms. Bhosale vehemently
denied that the offence is of civil nature and submitted that
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
the act of the Applicant and his son is compeltely covered
under the MPID Act and also the ingredients of offence of
cheating is clearly made out. Ms. Bhosale has also pointed out
that the son of the Applicant is absconding. The charges are
framed, the trial has commenced and the chief-examination of
the complainant is already recorded on 24th March, 2025. On
instructions, she submits that the prosecution intends to
examine approximately 7 witnesses. Thus, the trial is likely to
be concluded in the near future. She prays that the bail
application be rejected.
6. The Intervenor/complainant is represented by
Mr.Kandoi. In addition to his oral arguments he has also
placed written notes on record. He submitted that while the
Applicant has committed fraud on the the complainant and
her family members, he has in fact duped members of the
public as well and the overall loss to the public exceeds
Rs.600 crores. He further submits that while the victims are
deposing, grant of bail to the Applicant is likely to prejudice
the prosecution and undermine the confidence of the
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
witnesses. He submits that the Applicant is a habitual offender
and as such his Application be rejected.
7. I have heard learned counsels for the respective
parties and have perused the record with their assistance. I
have also gone through the order dated 28 th April, 2025,
wherein the present Applicant is granted bail in connection
with FIR No.143 of 2022 registered with the Santacruz Police
Station (intially registered as C.R. No.961 of 2022). It appears
that this Court enlarged the Applicant in that case prima facie
observing that the trial is pending before the Court which
would not be completed in the near foreseeable future. Now
in the present case, one prosecution witness is already
examined and only 6 prosectuion witnesses are remain to be
examined. Thus, the trial's end is visible on the horizon. In
this view of the matter, the principle of parity will not apply.
8. Notwithstanding the fact that, the complainants in
that matter were the same as the CR giving rise to the present
Bail Application, the Applicant cannot claim double jeopardy
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
as a defence for the reason that these are two independent
offences, albeit intiated by the same complainant but in
different CRs.
9. The charge-sheet clearly shows that there is a list
of investors who have been allegedly duped by the Applicant
and his son by employing similar modus operandi. As per the
Intervenor there are as many as 696 criminal cases pending
against the Applicant and his son and 86 criminal appeals in
various Courts. The Applicant is thus, a habitual offender
involved in offences of similar nature.
10. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI1, the Supreme
Court has observed that economic offences constitute a class
apart and need to be vistited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offences have deep rooted
conspiracies involving a huge loss of public funds which needs
to be viewed seriously. In the present case, the Applicant is
also facing charges under the MPID Act. The purpose of MPID
Act is very clear. It is to provide for speedy trial of offences of
1 (2013) 7 SCC 439
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
fraudulent means and to ensure effective recovery of money
so as to protect the small investors. The Applicant has also
averred in the grounds for bail in his Application that the
complainant should approach the RERA authorities and as
such the acts complained of by the complainant do not come
within the meaning of MPID Act. In my view, this argument
cannot be decided at the stage of bail. In any case, a plain
reading of Section 3 of the MPID Act, makes it clear that any
amount received by a financial establishment under any
scheme or arrangement, promising a return in cash or kind
amounts to a deposit.
11. In the present case, the complainant alongwith
other investors placed their money with the Applicant in a
fiduciary capacity who is duty bound to invest and return
profits as promised. The Applicant has been unable to return
their money. In any case, the trial has commenced and
witnesses are being examined. I am satisfied with the
submissions of the Intervenor that releasing the the Applicant
at this stage will undermine the confidence of the depositors.
th
7 October 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901-BA-615-2025.doc
Moreover, since the Applicant's son is absconding, it is also
likely that the Applicant may join his son.
12. Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the Applicant at this stage.
13. Bail Application is rejected.
14. It is made clear that the observations made in the
present order are confined to the Bail Application and the trial
Court should decide the case on its own merits, without being
influeced by the osbervations made hereinabove.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
th
7 October 2025
