[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Tejas Satish Shah vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:13448 902 -BA-4266-2025
Navnath Waghmare (P.A)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4266 OF 2025
Parag Ashokkumar Shah ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4790 OF 2025
Tejas Satish Shah ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Abad Ponda Sernior Advocate i/b Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi a/w
Suraj N. Naik, Ketkee Kamble for the Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa K. Gajare APP for the State
Mr. Yashwant Thorat for the Intervener in I.A 4790 of 2025 in
BA.4266/2025.
Mr. Atul Kedar, Vartaknagar Police Station, Mumbai
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON 16th MARCH, 2026
PC:- PRONOUNCED ON 18th MARCH, 2026
1. Applicant seeks regular bail in connection with CR No. 1232
of 2024 registered with Vartak Nagar Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 3 of the MPID Act.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that this is not a case of economic offence in order to apply
the rigors for granting bail in connection with such crimes which
902 -BA-4266-2025
largely affect economy of the country. It is his statement by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement , that even in such
cases there is no complete embargo for grant of bail. He further
relied upon judgment in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Others
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another. in order to argue that even
in appropriate cases of this nature pre-arrest bail could also be
granted. According to him the present case is not the one involving
economic offence which is likely to affect the economy of the
country. It is his submission that here in this case the informant
and witnesses, consciously decided to invest with the co-accused
and also got returns. It is submitted that out of 44 statements,
only 18 persons have claimed that the investments are done at the
instance of the applicant. It is submitted that even in the first
statement recorded by the police, there is no allegation against the
applicant that at this instance investment was made and that the
applicant was acting in collusion with co-accused. It is submitted
as per the case of the prosecution the said investment allegedly
attributable to the applicant i.e. about 3 Crores, whereas more
than 38 Crores of properties of the applicant has been attached in
the crime. It is submitted that now the co-accused are also arrested
and therefore there is no reason or justification for denying bail to
the applicant. It is his submission that applicant has no criminal
history behind him and merely because he happened to visit Dubai,
it cannot be assumed that he is party to the crime. According to
him in any case, applicant cannot be kept behind the bars by way
of pre-trial sentence.
902 -BA-4266-2025
3. Learned counsel for the APP and Learned counsel for the
Intervener opposed the application by contending that this is a
case of involvement of fraud of Rs. 510 crores( Rupees Five
Hundred and Ten Crores Only). It is submitted that the intervener
and other investors were induced by the applicant to invest with
co-accused and there is evidence on record even in the form of
first information report lodged by the applicant that he had
connection with the co-accused, not just as the investor but more
than that. It is submitted that the applicant paid Rs. 100 Crores to
the co-accused which indicates there is close connection which is
beyond the investment of the intervener and witnesses. It is
submitted that there is evidence on record to indicate the amount
being gone into the account of applicant which connects him with
the crime in question. Learned counsel for the intervener, submits
that for his own convenience applicant lodged FIR in the Police
Station in District Thane, further, there being any cause of action
arisen. It is submitted that the said report came to be lodged by
him in order to ensure that he claims himself to be the victim of
the crime. He further argued that there is evidence on record to
show that the Applicant has disposed of all his properties, which
indicate malafides on his part.
4. There cannot be two opinions in respect of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Chidambaram(cited Supra) and Sushila Aggarwal (cited Supra).
However, needless to say that, while granting or rejecting bail, the
Court is required to consider peculiar facts of each case. Apart
902 -BA-4266-2025
from this, it has also to be seen as to the stage of the investigation
of the crime. Even if it is accepted that after conclusion of
investigation against the Applicant, charge-sheet came to be filed
against him, there is no dispute about the fact that at that stage
the co-accused were absconding. Now documentary evidence is
place on record which indicates that the co-accused are now
arrested and therefore for the purpose of effective investigation it
would be not in the fitness case of justice to grant bail at this stage.
There is prima facie evidence to show that the co-accused-
Sudhirbhai in March, 2024 left India to Dubai. Applicant visited
Dubai in July, 2024 and thereafter in December, 2024, FIR came to
be lodged by him. At this stage, this Court does not find it to be a
mere coincidence. Having regard to the nature of gravity and
volume of the offence and also in view of the critical stage of
investigation, when the co-accused are nabbed after over a period
of two years of lodging of the report, this Court finds no
justification to enlarge the Applicant on bail at this stage.
5. Hence, Bail Application stands dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
