[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nimesh Navinchandra Shah vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 3 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:6114-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.368 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
Nimesh Navinchandra Shah, ]
2026.02.06
10:32:36
+0530
R/o. Simla House, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Bureau of Investigation, ]
BS & FB Branch, Bandra, Mumbai ]
2. State of Maharashtra ]
3. Union of India, ]
Office at Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai ] .. Respondents
Mr. Bhavesh Thakur, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Munde, Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Jai Vohra,
Advocate for Respondent No.1-CBI.
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, In-Charge Public Prosecutor with Mr. J.P.
Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2-State of
Maharashtra.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY 2026.
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :
Mr. Bhavesh Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner
tenders written note of arguments. The same is taken on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has filed Writ Petition (L) No.2020 of 2026 to challenge the look
out circular/notice issued at the behest of the Bank of Baroda,
which is pending before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
2. The petitioner has made the following prayers in this writ
petition:-
901-WP-368-2026.doc Dixit
"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and decalre that
the Respondent No. 1 action of issuing a lookout circular/notice
against the Petitioner without any show cause notice and/or
hearing is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and violative of the
Petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and quash and set aside the lookout circular/notice issued
against the Petitioner;
c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, effect and
implementationof the lookout ciruclar issued against the
Petitioner;
d) For interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause
(b) and (c)."
3. The petitioner states that he was restrained at the Airport by
the Immigration Authority on 14th May 2025 who informed him
that a look-out circular/notice has been issued against him by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) and the Bank of
Baroda, which is a member of Consortium of Banks. He has
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 to challenge the said action of the
CBI-respondent no.1 in issuing a look out circular/notice against
him which is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary decision.
4. The petitioner states that a company in the name and style
of M/s. Max Traders was incorporated by Mr. Mansukhlal Jobalia
and his family members which is engaged in the business of trade
of various types of films including papers, photographic x-ray and
graphic art films etc. He joined M/s. Silver Digigraph Private
Limited at the request of his friend, namely, Mr. Hitesh Jobalia
who started the said company with the same family business. The
petitioner further states that the business of M/s. Max
Converters, M/s. Max Traders and M/s. Silver Graphics was
901-WP-368-2026.doc Dixit
acquired by Mr. Hitesh Jobalia but the company's account was
declared as Non Performing Asset and the recovery proceedings
were initiated in contravention of the Reserve Bank of India's
Master Circulars.
5. A crime was registered by the CBI on 7 th November 2022 vide
First Information Report No.RC0772022E0006 under sections
120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(2)
and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the
course of investigation, a search was conducted at the petitioner's
house on 9th November 2022 and his bank statements, locker
keys, papers relating to recovery proceedings etc. were seized by
the CBI. The petitioner was issued section 41A Cr.P.C. notice on
20th July 2023 and he attended the office of the CBI on 2 nd August
2023 and 20th May 2025. In the meantime, an ECIR was registered
by the Enforcement Directorate vide No.ECIR/MBZO-I/73/2022
on 13th December 2022 and a search was again conducted at his
premises.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner co-operated with the investigation in the criminal case
as also the enquiry under the ECIR registered by the Enforcement
Directorate. The petitioner appeared before the Special Court and
has been granted bail in the CBI case. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further states that the petitioner travelled abroad on
several occasions and came to India but no default or misconduct
was reported against him. The Court has granted permission to
the petitioner in PMLA Special Case no.313 of 2025 with certain
conditions and there is no reason even to assume that the
petitioner is evading arrest or may evade the process of the Court
if he travels abroad. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers
to the decision in "Showik Indrajit Chakraborty v. The Additional
901-WP-368-2026.doc Dixit
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors." 1
and submits that the law laid down in the said case is a binding
precedent and applies squarely in this case. The learned counsel
for the petitioner referred to paragraph nos.16, 17 and 18 of
"Showik Indrajit Chakraborty" to submit that a look out
circular/notice can be issued against a person who deliberately
evades arrest or is not appearing in the trial Court despite non-
bailable warrants and other coercive measures taken against him.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied heavily on
paragraph no.27 of the said judgment and submitted that the
petitioner's right to travel, which is a fundamental right, cannot be
curtailed in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has also relied on the decisions in (i) "Showik
Indrajit Chakraborty v. The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureaue of Investigation & Ors." 2, (ii) "The Additional
Superintendent of Police & Ors. v. Showik Indrajit Chakraborty" 3,
(iii) "Om Prakash Bhatt v. State of Maharashtra & Ors." 4, (iv)
"Siddhartha Sudhir Moravekar v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
(SFIO) & Ors."5, (v) "Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam,
Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi & Ors." 6 and (vi) "Priya
Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India & Ors." 7.
7. In the first place, we need to record that there is no law of
precedence in a criminal case as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh" 8. :
"But these are matters of fact which will be special to each different
case and no conclusion on these questions of fact in any one case
1 2024 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 267
2 2024 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 267
3 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.43258/2024 - Order dated 25 th October 2024
4 Criminal Writ Petition No.111 of 2021 - Order dated 8 th April 2021.
5 Criminal Writ Petition No.523 of 2023 - Oral Judgment dated 16 th July 2024
6 (1967) 3 SCR 525
7 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7987
8 (1955) 2 SCC 340
901-WP-368-2026.doc Dixit
can ever be regarded as a precedent or a guide for a conclusion of
fact in another, because the facts can never be alike in any two
cases "however" alike they may seem. There is no such thing as a
judicial precedent on facts though counsel, and even Judges, are
sometimes prone to argue and to act as if there were."
8. The judgment in a case has to be understood in the
background facts and the applicable statutory provisions in the
case. There is no doubt that a little difference in the facts may lead
to different conclusion and therefore what is ratio decidendi in a
case has to be gathered on the reading of the whole judgment and
not on mere showing some paragraphs here and there. No right,
even a fundamental right, is absolute. Any right guaranteed to a
citizen of this country can be curtailed by and under a procedure
which is just, fair and reasonable. But then all these legal
considerations may arise only if there is pleading on record in this
regard. This writ petition is bereft of foundational facts. This writ
petition also suffers from suppression of material documents. The
petitioner nowhere states that he made enquiries and asked for a
copy of the look out circular/notice from the Immigration
Authority and his request was declined. No such prayer for the
production of the look out notice has been made in this writ
petition. According to the petitioner, it was on 15 th May 2025 that
he came to know about the issuance of a look out circular/notice
against him by the CBI and the Bank of Baroda. There is no
explanation by him for such huge delay in approaching this Court
to challenge the look out circular/notice. He states in paragraph
no.3.9 of the petition that he has to attend a family wedding at
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. in March 2026. This seems to be a reason,
though not stated specifically, that the petitioner wants to travel
abroad.
9. The petitioner moved the PMLA Special Court seeking
901-WP-368-2026.doc Dixit
permission to travel abroad in May, 2025. At that point in time,
the CBI case was pending and he is on bail in the said case. He
was required to seek permission from the CBI Court but the
learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner cannot
move any application and he is, in fact, not required to move the
CBI Court because his passport has not been seized. This
submission least to say is completely misconceived. This is an
implied condition in every order granting bail that the accused
shall remain present within the jurisdiction of the Court and shall
not leave the country without the permission of the Court. We find
that even a copy of the order granting bail is not on record.
10. In the First Information Report registered by the CBI on the
basis of a complaint made by the State Bank of India, Stressed
Assets Management Branch-I, Mumbai, the petitioner's
designation is reflected as Director and Guarantor. The specific
charge against him is of (a) fudging of books of accounts with
disproportionate increase in debtors and inventories and
substantial write off, (b) siphoning off funds to related parties and
(c) diversion of funds to entities related to directors and employees
(at page no.32 of the paper book). He along with others caused
wrongful loss of Rs.464.41 crores to Consortium group of State
Bank of India (Lead Bank) and eight other Consortium member
banks. It is alleged that M/s. Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd.,
and other accused persons named above, during the period
01.04.2011 to 31.03.2016 were party to a criminal conspiracy to
cheat Consortium group of State Bank of India (Lead Bank) and
eight member banks. We do not know and it is not appearing on a
glance at the order dated 9th May 2025, if these facts were brought
to the notice of the PMLA Court. The petitioner who is alleged to
have committed such offences and against whom a Prosecution
Complaint has been filed in the PMLA Court cannot take exception
901-WP-368-2026.doc Dixit
to a look out circular/notice issued against him. Merely because
he was co-operating with the investigation, granted bail and got
permission to travel abroad on several times, in our opinion, the
petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under
section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to
challenge the look out notice against him.
11. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
an equitable jurisdiction which the writ Court may decline to
exercise even where an arguable case has been made out. We
understand that the petitioner has raised a bogey of violation of
his fundamental rights but then this Court cannot be oblivious of
the registration of a case against him by the CBI and filing of
Prosecution Complaint by the Enforcement Directorate. The
offence of siphoning of public money must be viewed very
seriously by the Court because such offences seriously challenge
the financial stability of the country. The petitioner has no
justifiable reason and, that too, on such pleadings to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or the inherent powers under section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
12. Writ Petition no.368 of 2026 is dismissed.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]
901-WP-368-2026.doc Dixit
