[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kuldip Ramesh Shahu S/O Ramesh Sahu vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps ... on 23 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4620
1 25-Cr.BA-295-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 295 OF 2026
Kuldip Ramesh Shahu S/o Ramesh Sahu
-- VERSUS --
State of Maharashtra
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. Chandrakant Bailmare, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 23, 2026.
Heard.
2. The present application is filed seeking
regular bail in Crime No.1049/2023 for the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 413, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC)
and Sections 66, 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, registered with Police Station
Saoner, District Nagpur (Rural).
3. The informant, reported that on
16/11/2023, while working at Anushka Restaurant,
he was approached by Vivek Tejram Chaure, who
offered him Rs.2,000/- for accompanying him for
some work and took him to a nearby location where
Kuldeep Shahu, along with another person, allegedly
took possession of the informant's Aadhaar card, PAN
2 25-Cr.BA-295-2026
card, and mobile phone. The accused allegedly
photographed the informant's documents, and
collected OTPs. Vivek Chaure instructed the
informant that Rs.20,000/- would be credited to his
bank account, of which he could retain Rs.2,000/-
and the remaining Rs.18,000/- was to be handed
over to the accused. However, as the account was
linked to his wife, the transfer could not be
completed. Thereafter, the accused allegedly misused
the informant's personal documents and OTPs to
open a new bank account in his name, through which
funds were transferred without his consent. Based on
the said information, the F.I.R. was lodged.
4. It appears from the record that this
Court by its order dated 11/02/2026, has granted
bail to one co-accused, namely, Surendrakumar @
Vicky s/o Ramswaroop Gautam, in Criminal
Application [B.A.] No.1171/2025. The said order is
based on earlier two orders, wherein this Court as
well as the Supreme Court has granted bail to those
respective co-accused.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the present applicant is also similarly
situated and, therefore, he be granted bail on the
ground of parity.
3 25-Cr.BA-295-2026
6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
vehemently opposes the application and submits that
the applicant is the person who has withdrawn the
amount and has operated fake account. She further
submits that the applicant is the resident of Uttar
Pradesh (UP).
7. I have considered the rival submissions.
I have gone through the earlier orders passed by this
Court as well as by the Supreme Court. This Court,
while granting bail, in the case of Vivek Tejram
Chawre -VS- State of Maharashtra, (Criminal
Application [B.A.] No.414/2024, dated 12/07/2024,
has considered the application and granted bail,
observing that "admittedly the involvement of the
present applicant appears to be in the economic
offence. But now considering the investigation has
already complete and the charge-sheet is already
filed, further incarceration of the present applicant is
not required, therefore, the bail application deserves
to be allowed by imposing certain conditions."
Further, the Supreme Court in the case
of Siddhant VS State of Maharashtra, arising out of
SLP (Cri.) No.18607/2025, has observed as under:-
"5. The report (charge-sheet) under Section
193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed but the charges
have not yet been framed. Prosecution
proposes to examine 48 witnesses to drive
4 25-Cr.BA-295-2026
home the charges against the appellant. It is
not in dispute that all relevant documentary
evidence and digital records, which are likely
to be led in evidence by the prosecution,
have been seized. Question of tampering
with the evidence is, thus, remote.
6. That apart, we are informed that co-
accused - Vivek Chaware has been enlarged
on bail.
7. Taking an overall view of the matter, in
the light of the allegations levelled in the
charge-sheet, the number of witnesses to be
examined and the stage of trial, we are of the
considered opinion that the appellant need
not be detained in custody any longer; also,
since the trial is likely to take some time to
conclude, he could be admitted to an order
for release on bail pending trial."
8. Taking into consideration both the
orders and the fact that this Court has already
granted bail to Vivek and Surendrakumar @ Vicky
s/o Ramswaroop Gautam, and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has granted bail to Siddhant, I am also inclined
to grant bail on parity by imposing stringent
conditions. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is
allowed;
(ii) The applicant/accused (Kuldip
Ramesh Shahu S/o Ramesh Sahu) be released
5 25-Cr.BA-295-2026
on regular bail in connection with Crime
No.1049/2023 for the offence punishable under
Sections 406, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) and
Sections 66, 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, registered with Police
Station Saoner, District Nagpur (Rural), on his
furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty
Five Thousand Rupees) with two solvent
sureties in the like amount, i.e., one local surety
and another having permanent residence in
Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh;
(iii) The accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case, as also shall not tamper with the
evidence;
(iv) The accused shall provide his
residential address and cell number to Police
Station concerned and shall not change his place
of residence without prior intimation to the
Investigating Agency;
(v) The accused shall attend each and
every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend
the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to
comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default
would entail the State to ask for cancellation of
6 25-Cr.BA-295-2026
bail or even trial Court can suo moto take
cognizance of this and cancel the bail;
(vi) Pending Misc. Application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.
[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ]
Piyush Mahajan
