Yogesh Umesh Sancheti And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 5441 Bom

Bombay High Court

Yogesh Umesh Sancheti And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 May, 2026

                                                                 7-ABA-1350-2026.doc




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1350 OF 2026
Yogesh Umesh Sancheti and Ors.      ... Applicants
             Versus
The State of Maharashtra                           ... Respondent
                          --------------------
Mr. Seoul Shah a/w Mr. Chinmay Patil, Mr. Abhinav Tayade and Mr.
Shahnawaz SiddhiquE i/b Mr. Chinmay Patil, for the Applicants.

Mr. M. S. Sonawane, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Angad Singh Gill i/b Ms. Manisha Devkar a/w Mr. Vineet Shetty,
for the Original Complainant/ Intervenor.

Mr. Shinde, Police Sub Inspector, Faraskhana Police Station, Pune City.
                             --------------------

                                CORAM     :   SANDESH D. PATIL, J.

                                DATE    : 22 nd MAY, 2026.
                                (VACATION COURT)
P.C. :

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants.

2. The case of the Prosecution in short is that the Complainant,

who was carrying on business in gold and silver developed friendly

relationship with the Applicants No.3 and his family. They entered

7-ABA-1350-2026.doc

into one partnership also, such was the close relationship of the

parties. The Applicants No.2, who is the mother of the Applicant No.1

informed the Complainant that the Applicant No.1 suffered some

financial loss in gold and silver. She asked for certain amount of gold.

Taking into consideration the long standing relationship, gold to the

tune of Rs.1.5 kilograms was given without interest. Out of that gold,

gold admeasuring 500 grams was returned. Gold admeasuring 1000

gram i.e. 1 kg was not returned. The case of the Prosecution is that the

Applicants wanted to cheat the Complainant and therefore, the

Accused had induced the Complainant to enter into the said

transaction.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants stated that this is a

transaction of loan and that the Complainant is trying to recover the

gold lent by the Complainant through the police machinery. He

submits that the Applicants are innocent and that, their custodial

interrogation is not necessary. He submits that the Applicants are

permanent resident of the address given in the title clause and that his

7-ABA-1350-2026.doc

custodial interrogation is not necessary. The Applicants are ready to

co-operate with the investigation.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State as well as the

Intervenor states that the Applicants do not want to return the gold.

They submit that right from the beginning, the Applicants wanted to

defraud the Complainant and as a part of the deceit they have returned

only 500 grams of gold and remaining 1000 gram is not returned.

Both the learned Counsel appearing for the State and the Intervenor

invites my attention to paragraph no.8 of the Order passed by the

learned Addl. Sessions Court, Pune while rejecting bail which notes

that the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants did not dispute

that 1000 grams gold is not returned by the Applicants to the

informant. They rely upon WhatsApp chat to show that admittedly the

Applicants had received 1000 grams of gold. They pray for rejection of

the present Application.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective

7-ABA-1350-2026.doc

parties and after perusing the F.I.R., it is evident that, admittedly there

was a transaction whereby 1500 grams gold was given to the

Applicants. Admittedly, 500 grams of gold was returned by the

Applicants, however, 1000 grams of gold was not returned by the

Applicants. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged. Although it is true that

the Police would not act as a recovery agent yet this is a case where the

Complainant has alleged offences under Section 316(2), 318(2) read

with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is the

contention of the Complainant that the Applicants wanted to cheat the

Complainant and therefore, only part of the gold was returned i.e. 500

grams and major portion of the gold is not yet returned. Having

considered the aforesaid position, it is clear that prima facie case

against the Applicants is made out in the F.I.R. No.153 of 2026

registered with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune City on 6 th May, 2026.

Therefore, no case is made out for grant of any ad-interim relief .

6. List the matter on 16th June, 2026 for further consideration.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)