Prateek Agarwaal vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

30-aba-2849-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2849 OF 2025

¶4

Prateek Agarwaal …Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, a/w Ms. Keral Mehta & Adv. Bhavya Shah,i/b A&P Partners Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. T. G. Khan, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 13.10.2025.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This is an application for Transit Anticipatory Bail.

¶12

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 169 of 2025 registered at Civil Lines, Patiala Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act and under Section 447 of the Companies Act.

¶13

The informant in the above crime is a Chartered

¶14

Accountant and shareholder in Hindon Mercantile Limited. The informant has alleged that the applicant due to his anomalous and

Pramod S.Lakare

1/3

30-aba-2849-2025.doc

malicious action disrupted the functioning of the company. According to the informant, the applicant used coercive language and emailed defamatory statement to various shareholder with intent of causing harm to the company’s reputation, causing financial losses. According to the informant, the applicant misused company’s data. It is further alleged that the applicant has continuously raised baseless demands, including the unlawful claim to shares based on alleged documents, which were obtained under questionable circumstances.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is engaged in services of procuring funding for the investment company. It is submitted that under the agreement, the applicant was entitled to get cash value equivalent to Rs.7,00,00,000/- It is submitted that due to the dispute, the present applicant was constrained to file an application for appointment of arbitrator. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of the said submission has drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 12.08.2025 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 637 of 2025.

Pramod S.Lakare

2/3

30-aba-2849-2025.doc

I have perused the first information report. There appears to be no need of immediate custodial interrogation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to protect the applicant for the period of four weeks to enable him to approach the jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief. In the result, the following order is passed :

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

a) The Application is allowed.

¶26

b) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 169 of 2025 registered at Civil Lines, Patiala Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act and under Section 447 of the Companies Act, he be released on bail for the period of four weeks.

¶27

c) The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶29

Pramod S.Lakare

¶30

3/3

Prateek Agarwaal v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Agarwaal 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Jayantilal Khimawat vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Xyz vs State of Maharashtra

Ashish Kumar Shrivastav vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Vijayshankar Yadav vs State of Maharashtra

Neha Akshar Biyani vs Akshar Krishnakumar Biyani

Maruti Dhondiba Shelar vs State of Maharashtra