Disposed¶17

Sandip Krishna Kambale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2025ABA/2259/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court anticipatory bail order; interim protection against coercive action; applicant Sandip Krishna Kambale, director of Snehalniti Private Limited; alleged amounts received exclusively in proprietorship M/s Snehalniti Enterprises (accused No.1 sole proprietor); separate juristic personality; trade-name similarity confusion; no pecuniary benefit derived; EOW-I Navi Mumbai investigating officer API Deepak Kadam; APP sought instructions; by consent stand over to 04-09-2025; ABA 2259/2025; Laddha J.; nexus question undecided.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection: no coercive action against the applicant in the present case till the next date; matter stood over by consent to 4 September 2025. ¶17

Sandip Krishna Kambale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

CHITRASANJAYSONAWANE Digitallysigned byCHITRASANJAYSONAWANEDate:2025.08.1319:41:20+0530

¶2

Chitra Sonawane 909-aba-2259-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Anticipatory Bail Application No.2259 of 2025

¶5

Sandip Krishna Kambale … Applicant. Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents.

¶7

Ms Rashmi Kulkarni a/w Mr Ashish Kachole for the applicant.

¶8

Mr MG Patil, APP a/w Mr Shahaji Shinde, Panel B for the respondent / State.

¶9

API Deepak Kadam, EOW-I, Navi Mumbai.

¶10

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 13 August 2025.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no nexus, direct or indirect, with the alleged offence in question. It is contended that, even accepting the case of the prosecution at its highest, the monetary amounts in the issue were received exclusively in the proprietary concern operating under the name and style of M/s Snehalniti Enterprises, wherein accused No.1 is the sole proprietor. The present applicant holds the position of director in Snehalniti Private Limited, a distinct and

¶13

Page No. 1 of 2 ____________________________________________ 13 August 2025

¶14

Chitra Sonawane 909-aba-2259-2025.doc

¶15

separate juristic entity, in which no amount, as alleged has been credited or received. The applicant has not derived, nor has been shown to have derived, any pecuniary advantage or benefit from the impuged transactions. It is further submitted that Snehalniti Enterprises (a sole proprietorship) and Snehalniti Private Limited (a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act) are two entirely independent legal entities, each possessing separate juridical personality, governance structure, and financial accounts. Any perceived connection between the two is merely attributable to the similarity in their trade names, which has resulted in unwarranted confusion.

¶16

Learned APP, however, seeks an accommodation to obtain necessary instructions from the investigating officer.

¶17

By consent stand over to 4 September 2025 . There shall not be any coercive action against the applicant in the present case till the next date.

¶18

[R. N. Laddha, J.]

¶19

Page No. 2 of 2

¶20

13 August 2025

Sandip Krishna Kambale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Krishna Kambale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sabina Lakdawala vs Feroze Y Lakdawala and Ors.

Vaibhav Ashok Patil vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pandharinath Vitthal Zendekar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rameshchandra Krishnalal Mishra vs State of Maharashtra

Vallabhbhai Vashrambhai Italia and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Ali Badul Qadar Shaikh and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra