[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nanda Sushil Kadam vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 May, 2026
35. ABA 1316-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1316 OF 2026
Sou. Nanda Sushil Kadam ).. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra )
Through Chatursusngi Police Station ).. Respondent
-----
Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Mr. Samsher Garud, Mr. Joy Pereira, Mr. Atharva
Gade i/b Jayakar & Partners for the Applicant.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Mr. Malhar Kadam for the
Complainant/Intervenor.
-----
CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
DATE : 15th MAY 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C. :
1) Heard Mr. Aniket Nikam, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant.
2) Mr. Saryavrat Joshi, the learned Counsel for the complaint prays
to intervene in the matter. The learned Counsel for the Applicant is
directed to add the original complainant as party Respondent No.2 to
35. ABA 1316-2026.odt
the present proceedings.
3) The case of the complainant is that the complainant and one
Mr. Sushil Kadam (the husband of the Applicant) were acquainted with
each other. In the year 2017, the husband of the Applicant convinced
the complainant to purchase the land admeasuring 12 acres owned by
one Mr. Balkishan Gupta. It is the case of the complainant that the
amount was to be invested in the ratio of 50 per cent by the
complainant and 50 per cent by the husband of the Applicant. The
complainant further states that the complainant had paid the amount of
Rs.50 lakhs to Balkishan Gupta and Rs.25 lakhs to Aristone Multicare
Pvt. Ltd. He states that the accounts of Balkishan Gupta and Aristone
Multicare Pvt. Ltd were infact shell accounts of non-existing entities. It
is the case of the complainant that he had paid an amount of Rs.30
lakhs to the agents and further an amount of Rs.7.50 lakhs as stamp
duty. All these transpired in the year 2017. The complainant states that
the complainant had gone to register the documents, at that time the
complainant was also carrying out cash of Rs.1 crore 35 lakhs. It is the
case of the complainant that Balkishan Gupta did not turn up and
hence the husband of the Applicant skillfully convinced the
35. ABA 1316-2026.odt
complainant to keep the cash of Rs.1 crore 35 lakhs with himself, i.e.
the husband of the Applicant. The complainant's case is that the
Applicant along with her son and her husband duped the complainant
to the huge amounts as aforestated, hence, C.R. No.161 of 2026, under
Sections 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 339, 316(2), 318(4), 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, came to be filed with Chatursungi
Police Station.
4) Mr. Aniket Nikam, the learned Counsel for the Applicant states
that the entire transaction in question took place in the year 2017. He
states that it is very difficult to believe that a person who is duped to
the tune of Rs.2 crores and odd amounts will keep quite till the year
2026. He states that assuming for argument without admitting that the
complainant was under the fear that the husband of the Applicant is the
Police Office of high rank, yet the husband of the Applicant had retired
in the year 2018. He submits that it is difficult to believe that that the
complainant would keep quite for such a long period. He states that
there is a huge inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R. He
assuming for the argument purpose, states that the transaction in
question has taken place, yet the said is purely a monetary dispute of
35. ABA 1316-2026.odt
civil nature. He states that the custodial interrogation is not necessary.
5) Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the
complainant state that the Applicant, in connivance of the husband of
the Applicant was instrumental in cheating the present complainant
and also causing huge monetary loss to him. He states that the
custodial interrogation is required in order to ascertain the trail of
money. He states that the offence is very serious in nature, and
therefore, their custodial interrogation is necessary. Mr. Joshi, the
learned Counsel also states that he would like to file a detailed Affidavit
setting forth his case.
6) Mr. Mayur Sonavane, the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-
State, states that the Investigating Officer is not present and he requires
some time to take instructions.
7) In the premise, time is granted to the learned A.P.P. as well as the
learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 to file their
detailed Affidavit.
35. ABA 1316-2026.odt
8) Taking into consideration a huge delay, prima facie I find that the
interim protection requires to be granted to the Applicant.
9) The Applicant being a lady and taking into consideration the huge
delay, I am inclined to pass the following Order. Needless to state that
the present Order will be limited only to the facts of the present
Anticipatory Bail Application.
10) Hence, the following Order :-
(i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant-Nanda Sushil
Kadam, shall be released on bail in connection with
C.R. No.161 of 2026, registered with Chatursungi
Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections
336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 339, 316(2), 318(4),
3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, on furnishing
P.R.. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer
35. ABA 1316-2026.odt
of the concerned Police Station for a period from 25 th
May 2026 to 27th May 2026, between 10.00 a.m. to
01.00 p.m. and thereafter, as and when required.
11) Stand over to 24th June 2026.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
RAJESH by RAJESH
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.05.19
10:42:46 +0530
