Aniket Sushil Kadam vs State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 5355 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5355 Bom
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Aniket Sushil Kadam vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 May, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1315 OF 2026
Aniket Sushil Kadam                                                  .. Applicant
         Vs.
State of Maharashtra,
Through Chaturshrungi Police Station, Pune                           .. Respondent

Mr. Aniket Nikam with Mr. S.R. Garud, Advocates, i/by Jayakar &
Partners, for the Applicant.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-
State of Maharashtra.
PSI Manisha Jadhav, Chaturshrungi Police Station, Pune City is present
in Court.
                                        CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

                                        DATE         : 21ST MAY 2026
                                                       [ VACATION COURT ]
P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant prays to intervene

in the matter. Mr. Nikam, learned counsel for the Applicant is directed to

add the original complainant as party Respondent no.2 to the present

proceedings.

3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and one

Mr. Sushil Kadam (the father of the Applicant) were acquainted with

each other. In the year 2017, the father of the Applicant convinced the

7-ABA-1315-2026.doc Dixit

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% by the complainant and 50% by

the father 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 this 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.1.35 crores. It is the case of the complainant that Balkishan Gupta

did not turn up and hence the father of the Applicant skillfully convinced

the complainant to keep the cash of Rs.1.35 crores with himself, i.e. the

father of the Applicant. The complainant's case is that the Applicant

along with his mother and father 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.

7-ABA-1315-2026.doc Dixit

4. Mr. Nikam, 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 quiet till the year 2026. He states that

assuming for argument without admitting that the complainant was under

the fear that the father of the Applicant is a Police Office of high rank,

yet the father of the Applicant had retired in the year 2018. He submits

that it is difficult to believe that the complainant would keep quiet for

such a long period. For the argument's sake even if the transaction in

question has taken place, yet the said is purely a monetary dispute of

civil nature. He states that the custodial interrogation is not necessary.

5. Mr. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant states

that the Applicant, in connivance of the father 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. He states that, Applicant has received a sum of

Rs.25 lakhs from Aristone Multicare Pvt. Ltd. Therefore parity is not

applicable. Though transaction is of 2017, the cheque was issued to the

7-ABA-1315-2026.doc Dixit

informant in 2024 and thereafter the FIR came to be registered, therefore

delay cannot be contended Mr. Pawar, learned counsel also states that he

would like to file a detailed Affidavit setting forth his case.

6. Mr. Mayur Sonavane, the learned APP for the Respondent no.1-

State, on instructions, submits that the present Applicant has received a

sum of Rs.5 lakhs in his account and the same is required to be

recovered.

7. In the premise, time is granted to the learned APP as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2 to file their detailed

Affidavit.

8. The Applicant being a student and taking into consideration the

huge delay, prima facie I find that the interim protection requires to be

granted to the Applicant and 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.

9. Hence, the following order :-

(i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant - Aniket Sushil

Kadam, shall be released on bail in connection with

C.R. No.161 of 2026, registered with Chatursungi

7-ABA-1315-2026.doc Dixit

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

of the concerned Police Station for a period from 25th

May 2026 to 27th May 2026, between 10.00 a.m. to

01.00 p.m. and thereafter, as and when required.

(iii) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person/s

acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade such

person/s from disclosing the facts to the Court or any

police officer.

(iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in

any manner.

(v) The Applicant shall provide the Investigating Officer

with his residential address along with proof, his

contact number, e-mail and must inform the

7-ABA-1315-2026.doc Dixit

Investigating Officer of any changes to this