Pralhad Pramod Shirodkar vs the State of Maharashtra

916-aba-2499-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2499 OF 2024

¶3

DINESH SADANAND SHERLA

¶4

Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2025.10.17 17:59:10 +0530

¶5

Pralhad P. Shirodkar V/s.

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Kanchanpurkar Gautam Tatoba for the Applicant. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. Ms Keral Mehta, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2. PSI Yogesh Chinchole, Vikhroli Police Station present.

¶10

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 08.10.2025.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶13

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 337 of 2024 registered at Vikhroli Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶14

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant is the owner of a jewellery shop namely "S.S. Shirodkar Jewellers". The complainant is acquainted with the applicant and as such has purchased gold and silver ornaments from him for the past 20 years. On 8^th November 2015, the complainant had purchased 2 gold bangles of 40 grams for Rs.1,23,785/- from the applicant. Subsequently on 14^th November 2021, the complainant handed over the said gold bangles to the applicant for the purpose of remaking the same into a new design. Accordingly, the applicant

1/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

916-aba-2499-24.doc

accepted the said gold bangles and issued receipts for the same. However, later the applicant failed to return the said gold bangles to the complainant as promised by him. Consequently, the present crime was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned APP appearing for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/first informant.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was willing to return the ornaments, however, due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the ornaments could not return to the first informant. It is submitted that from the allegations it cannot be inferred that, since, inception the intent of the applicant was to cheat the first informant. It is submitted that in terms of order passed by this Court dated 6^th September 2024, the present applicant has already deposited Rs.2,25,000/- with the registry of this Court.

¶21

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/first informant submit that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to recover the ornaments. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶22

I have perused the first information report. The fact that the

2/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

916-aba-2499-24.doc

applicant has not returned the ornaments to the first informant for the period of three years is sufficient at this stage to draw an inference that the intent of the applicant was to cheat the first informant. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Application is rejected.

¶27

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶28

3/3

¶29

Dinesh S. Sherla

Pralhad Pramod Shirodkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Pramod Shirodkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Jaynarayan Sharma vs Atul Kantilal Chopda

Uttam Sitararn Dhore vs Praveen Tulsirarn Sankpal

Vallabhbhai Vashrambhai Italia and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Babaji Ramchandra Kale vs Shantaram Mahadu Deshmukh

Pallavi Dalmia (Nee Pallavi Agarwal) vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Vanji Pagare vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.