[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Adil Bahoddin Jahagirdar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5737
1 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 790 OF 2024
ADIL BAHODDIN JAHAGIRDAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2025
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 790 OF 2024
ZABEEUDDIN IMTIAZUDDIN PATEL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
_____________________________________________________________
Advocate for Applicant in ABA : Mr. N. B. Narwade
APP for the Respondents/State : Mr. P. D. Patil
Advocate for Applicant in Cri. Application : Mr. Abhishek Patil
h/f Mr. Omkar Shendkar
Advocates for assisting prosecution : Mr. S.T. Mahajan,
Mr. P.S. Dighe, Mr. R.R. Karpe a/w Mr. Shubham Pawar.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
Date of Reserving the Order : 4th FEBRUARY, 2026
Date of Pronouncing the Order : 10th FEBRUARY, 2026
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the
learned APP for the State.
2 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
2. The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.30/2024
registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, Taluka
Shrirampur and Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned Counsel Mr. Narwade for the Applicant
submits that this Court vide order dated 15.05.2024 had
protected the Applicant by granting interim relief which was
continued from time to time and the Applicant complied
with the interim order by attending police station. The
interim order may therefore be continued and the Applicant
may be released on anticipatory bail.
. The learned Counsel for the Applicant further
submits that the Applicant had no intention to cheat the
complainant or the other investors mentioned in the FIR.
The Applicant had entered into agreements with the
complainant and the other investors dated 20.02.2023,
27.02.2023, and 24.04.2023. The Applicant issued post-
dated cheques to the complainant and other investors. The
investors invested the amount through the Applicant in a
Zerodha Demat account with the clear understanding that
online trading is always subject to market fluctuations. The
3 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
shares in which the Applicant had invested declined in
value, resulting in heavy losses to the Applicant, who was
engaged in share trading. Although the agreements
executed on 20.02.2023, 27.02.2023, and 24.04.2023 did
not expressly contain a clause regarding online trading,
they were executed solely to secure the investments of the
investers and also recorded the handing over of post-dated
cheques to the complainant and other investors. This
demonstrates that there was no intention to cheat from the
very inception on the part of the Applicant. The complainant
willingly invested in the said trading business, and now,
upon incurring losses, has lodged a false FIR with the sole
intention of extracting money from the Applicant. The
Applicant has no criminal antecedents and is ready to abide
by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
Therefore, the interim order dated 15.05.2024 may kindly
be confirmed, and the Applicant may be released on
anticipatory bail.
4. As against this, the learned APP vehemently oppose
the present application on the ground that, despite the
interim orders dated 15.05.2024, 26.03.2025, 05.05.2025,
and 07.07.2025 directing the Applicant to attend the police
station and cooperate with the investigation, the Applicant
4 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
has failed to do so. The Applicant was directed to submit
the relevant documents, hard disk, and laptop for further
investigation, however the Applicant has failed to submit
any such documents.
5. The learned Counsel for the Intervenor, Mr. Karpe,
appearing for investors Israr, Atif ur Rehman, and Tausif
Pathan, the learned Advocate Mahajan appearing for
investor Dr. Abhimanyu, and Mr. Dige appearing for the
complainant, vehemently oppose the present application.
They submit that on 20.02.2023, the complainant invested
Rs. 50 Lakhs, and an agreement was executed on stamp
paper by the Applicant. In order to gain confidence, the
Applicant handed over Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant
immediately after three days of execution of the
agreement. On 27.02.2023, the Applicant again executed
an agreement, as the complainant paid an additional
amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs for business purposes, which the
accused invested in the share market. The agreement was
executed on stamp paper on 27.02.2023 which bears the
signature of the Applicant. In order to gain the confidence of
the complainant, the Applicant paid an amount of Rs. 5
Lakhs to the complainant on 20.04.2023. Thereafter, the
complainant paid Rs. 50 Lakhs through RTGS into the
5 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
account of the accused in the HDFC Bank, Shrirampur
Branch, and an agreement to that effect was executed on
24.04.2023, bearing the signature of the complainant.
Other investors, namely Abhimanyu Makhne, Atif-ur-
Rehman, Israr, and Tausif Pathan, have collectively invested
a total amount of Rs. 5.8 Crores with the accused. The
accused has brazenly violated the promise made to the
complainant and other investors to return the invested
amounts and has cheated the complainant and others.
. After obtaining the interim order granted by this
Court vide order dated 15.05.2024, the Applicant has never
attended before the Investigating Officer and has not
provided the relevant documents which could have helped
the Investigating Officer to ascertain the information
regarding the amount stashed by the Applicant in safe
havens. The Applicant, though have appeared before the
Investigating Officer, failed to cooperate and did not divulge
any details regarding the amount misappropriated by him.
Accordingly, the Investigating Officer has addressed a
communication to the Government Pleader's Office, thereby
informing about the Applicant's non-cooperation in
completing the investigation. The investigation has stalled
due to the Applicant's non-cooperation, and since this is an
economic offence wherein several persons have been
6 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
cheated by the Applicant. Hence this is not a fit case to
grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant and the application
for anticipatory bail may be rejected.
6. The learned APP relies upon the communications
issued by the Investigating Officer dated 07.07.2025,
19.07.2025, and 04.08.2024 to show that, despite several
communications issued to the Applicant directing him to
produce the relevant documents such as day-to-day profit
and loss statements, account withdrawal statements, and
details of the several bank accounts operated by him, the
Applicant failed to comply. Instead, the Applicant replied to
the Investigating Officer on 15.07.2025, stating that the
information regarding his personal and professional
transactions was unrelated to the allegations in the FIR and
therefore could not be provided. Taking into consideration
the non-cooperation of the Applicant, a written notice was
issued to him on 08.07.2025, directing him to remain
present on 15.07.2025. The notice was received by the
Applicant on 14.07.2025, however he still failed to remain
present for investigation.
. Taking into consideration the conduct of the
Applicant in failing to cooperate with the Investigating
Officer, which has resulted in the investigation being
7 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
stalled, the application is sought to be rejected by the
learned APP. According to him, the investigation is complex
in nature and cannot be completed unless the Applicant is
interrogated in custody.
7. I have gone through the investigation papers made
available by the learned APP and the affidavit of compliance
handed over by the learned Counsel for the Applicant Mr.
Narwade during the course of hearing. The affidavit of
compliance filed by the Applicant, though states that the
Applicant has complied with the Court's orders from time to
time, is contradicted by communications issued by the
Investigating Officer. These communications of
Investigating Officer clearly state that, although the
Applicant has attended the police station and obtained an
entry and seal from the duty officer, he has failed to attend
before the Investigating Officer. The learned Counsel for
the Applicant has relied upon the communication dated
03.08.2025 addressed to the Investigating Officer regarding
the submission of a pen drive containing PDF files sourced
directly from official portals such as Zerodha Broking
Limited, Axis Bank, and HDFC Bank. However, the
communication dated 04.08.2025 issued by the
Investigating Officer to the Government Pleader's Office
8 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
shows that the Applicant had instead submitted a letter
dated 15.05.2025, wherein he stated that he is a practicing
lawyer and not a share market trader, and therefore cannot
provide the information sought by the Investigating Officer.
Though the Applicant has attended before the Investigating
Officer, he has not cooperated and has failed to answer the
queries put to him. The Applicant was asked to hand over
his laptop and hard disk; however, he informed that he had
sold the laptop. When asked to disclose to whom the laptop
was sold, the Applicant failed to provide any such
information. The Applicant was also questioned regarding
the withdrawal of amounts from the Zerodha account, but
he failed to provide any information in that regard.
. The communication dated 04.08.2025 further shows
that the Applicant has failed to provide any information
regarding the withdrawal statements and the other bank
accounts operated by him. Accordingly, the Investigating
Officer has requested that the application for anticipatory
bail be rejected, as the Applicant has failed to cooperate
with the investigation.
8. The perusal of the investigation papers further
shows that the huge amount of Rs.1,23,53,538/- is
transferred from Zerodha Demat account to the account of
9 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
accused Applicant from the period of 20.04.2023 to
06.01.2024. The amount of about Rs.84,52,550/- is also
shown to be transferred in the account of Huma Adil that is
wife of the present Applicant. The huge amount is
transferred to the account of Imran Bahauddin from the
account of the present Applicant. Taking into consideration
the conduct of the Applicant for non-cooperation, this Court
has directed the Applicant to attend the police station on
every Friday vide order dated 05.05.2025, despite there
being no such condition in the earlier interim order dated
15.05.2024 passed by this Court. After the report of the
Investigating Officer dated 07.07.2025, wherein it was
informed to the Court that the Applicant had failed to
cooperate with the investigation, this Court recorded the
statement of the Applicant that he was willing to submit the
concerned profit and loss account in its order dated
07.07.2025. From the record, it appears that the
Investigating Officer issued a notice to the Applicant to
remain present on 14.07.2025. However, instead of
providing the required information, the Applicant refused to
submit the documents vide communication dated
15.07.2025.
Taking into consideration the non-cooperation of
the Applicant, the matter was heard by this Court on
10 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
21.07.2025 and undertaking of the Applicant was recorded
that he is ready to furnish whatever documents in his
possession as demanded by the prosecution vide
communication dated 29.07.2025. Despite of such
undertaking being given to this Court, the Applicant has
failed to cooperate with the investigation as could be seen
from the report of the Investigating Officer. It is further
noted that the accused, being a practicing advocate, has
filed insolvency proceedings. The statement of account of
HDFC Bank pertaining to the accused shows that the
Applicant, Aadil, deposited substantial amounts in the
account of Zerodha Broking Ltd., subsequently withdrew the
same, and that Zerodha Broking Ltd. transferred huge
amounts to the account of the accused Applicant during the
period from 20.04.2023 to 06.01.2024. The Applicant, being
an advocate, had carefully drafted the agreements to show
that the amounts received were for his business purposes.
However, the Applicant used the funds for trading purposes
and appears to have made substantial profits out of the
same. Prima facie, it appears from the record that from the
very inception, the Applicant acted with the intention to
cheat the complainant and other investors by executing the
agreements and gradually gaining their confidence through
the initial return of some amounts. Thereafter, the Applicant
11 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
refused to repay the large sums deposited by the
complainant and other investors.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2013) 7 SCC 439 and in the case of Tarunkumar Vs.
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 NSC
1006 and in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs C.B.I.,
Hyderabad, (2013) 7 SCC 466, was pleased to hold that the
economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed
seriously and considered as a grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious
threat to the financial health of the country.
10. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence,
the huge amounts involved, the complex nature of the
investigation, and the conduct of the Applicant, in my
opinion, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is
necessary to unearth and resolve the entire crime. Hence,
this is not a fit case for exercise of powers under Section
482 of the B.N.S. for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly,
12 932.ABA-790-2024.doc
the application stands rejected and is disposed of.
11. The application for assisting the prosecution is also
disposed of.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN
JUDGE
12. After pronouncement of the order, the learned
Counsel for the Applicant prays for continuation of interim
relief. Looking to the gravity of the offence, the prayer for
continuation of interim relief is rejected.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN
JUDGE
Najeeb..
