Dismissed¶11

Manish Sanjay Chawan v. State of Maharashtra

Anticipatory bail – Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Bombay HC8 Oct 2025ABA/540/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; Section 438 CrPC 1973; absconding accused; not available for investigation; proclaimed offender; Section 82 CrPC; Section 41A CrPC notice; cheating; criminal breach of trust; Sections 406 and 420 IPC; C.R. No.284 of 2022; Warje-Malwadi Police Station Pune; Rs.15,36,000 investment cheating; Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730; Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489; Anticipatory Bail Application No.540 of 2024; Bombay High Court; Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; application dismissed

What did the court decide?

The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed because the Applicant is absconding and not available for investigation. ¶11

Manish Sanjay Chawan vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with C.R. No.284 of 2022 (offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC). +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed because the Applicant is absconding and not available for investigation.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Relying on Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court proceeded on the principle that an accused who is absconding and against whom steps are taken for declaration as a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Applicant (Manish Sanjay Chawan) sought pre-arrest bail in C.R. No.284 of 2022, Warje-Malwadi Police Station, Pune, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, alleging inducement to invest Rs.15,36,000/- (July–October 2019) with false assurance of returns; his regular bail application (Criminal Bail Application No.6755 of 2023) had been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 5th January 2024. Despite the Court's direction dated 8th October 2025 to attend the police station on 13th and 14th October 2025, the Applicant did not appear; station diary entries recorded police visits to his residence where he was not found; the State stated steps would be taken to declare him a proclaimed offender. Relying on Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, and Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489, HELD, dismissing the application: an Applicant who is absconding and not available for investigation is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. Assistance of Amicus Curiae Mr. Chaitanya M. Bagul appreciated; High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai requested to pay professional charges as per rules. (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; decided 16th October 2025.)

¶1

926-ABA-540-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2024

¶4

Manish Sanjay Chawan …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶5

Mr. Chaitanya M. Bagul, Amicus Curiae, for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶6

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap i/b. J. Shekhar Associates, for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 16^th OCTOBER 2025

¶8

PC:-

¶9

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

¶10

Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.284 of 2022 registered with Warje-Malwadi Police Station, Pune City, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶11

The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 5^th January 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.6755 of 2023

Page 1

Sonali

926-ABA-540-2024.DOC

filed by the present Applicant, by which the said application has been rejected. The said paragraph No.2, reads as under:

¶16

“2. Fact of prosecution case is that, on 26/7/2022 as per the report of Rupesh Shashte crime in question registered. Sum and substance of FIR is that in between period from 6/7/2019 to 23/10/2019 accused involved in the crime dishonestly induced to invest and deliver amount to the tune of Rs.15,36,000/- by way of different transactions with assurance of good returns, but inspite of acceptance of invested amount no return received to him from accused involved in the crime and thereby accused cheated to him, coupled with breach of trust and by doing so, offence in question committed by accused involved in the crime.”

¶17

As none was appearing for the Applicant on various dates, this Court by order dated 6^th October 2025 has appointed Mr. Chaitanya Bagul, learned Counsel as Amicus Curiae to represent the interest of the Applicant.

¶18

Mr. Bagul, learned Counsel submitted that there is delay of about 2 years and 9 months in filing the FIR, certain amounts received by the First Informant are not disclosed and Rs.3,00,000/have been deposited in this Court. He therefore, submitted that the Applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

Page 2

Sonali

926-ABA-540-2024.DOC

Mr. Metkari, learned APP raised several contentions including that the Applicant is absconding. However, Mr. Bagul, learned Counsel submitted that there is no material on record to show that notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been issued to the Applicant.

¶23

As the learned APP submitted that the Applicant is absconding, on 8^th October 2025, this Court has directed the Applicant to attend the Warje-Malwadi Police Station, Pune, on 13^th October 2025 and 14^th October 2025 between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m.

¶24

Mr. Metkari, learned APP states that the Applicant has not attended the Warje-Malwadi Police Station on 13^th October 2025 and 14^th October 2025. He submits that the Applicant is absconding. To support the same, learned APP points out the entries made in the station diary recording that the police personnel have visited the residence of the Applicant, however, he was not found.

Page 3

Sonali

926-ABA-540-2024.DOC

Mr. Metkari, learned APP submits that steps will be taken to declare the Applicant as proclaimed offender.

¶29

The Supreme Court in the decision of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)¹ , has inter alia held that normally when the Accused is “absconding” and declared as a “proclaimed offender”, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. It has been reiterated that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶30

The Supreme Court in the decision of Nikita Jagganath Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra² , has observed that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offences.

¶31

1 (2012) 8 SCC 730

¶32

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489

Page 4

Sonali

926-ABA-540-2024.DOC

As the Applicant is not available for the investigation, the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

¶37

This Court places on record the appreciation of assistance rendered by Mr. Chaitanya M. Bagul, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Applicant.

¶38

The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai is requested to pay the professional charges of Mr. Chaitanya M. Bagul, learned Counsel, as per rules.

¶39

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶40

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.10.18 14:18:02 +0530

¶41

Page 5

¶42

Sonali

Manish Sanjay Chawan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Sanjay Chawan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilip Jethalal Modi vs Shri Bansidhar B. Gupta (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. and Anr.

Mr. Deepak Baban Gawali vs Mrs. Anuja Deepak Gawali Alias Anuja Vitthal Shelke

Seema Ambadas Hundekar Alias Mrs. Seema Raju Gunjal vs Mehmood Mehendi Khan

Mr. Yogesh Trikamal Vani (Huf) and Ors. vs M/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Amol Baban Pise vs State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Sanjay Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra