Shrikant Dnyanoba Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Shrikant Dnyanoba Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Shrikant Dnyanoba Gitte, is entitled to regular bail under section 483 BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 03 of 2024 (Shivaji Nagar police station, Nanded) for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, 1999. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicant is involved in a serious crime and duped the informant and his family members for crores of rupees; considering all these aspects, the bail application deserves to be rejected and stands rejected.

Ratio / Principle

There is no new ground and no change in circumstances to consider the present applicant's prayer for bail; an earlier application had been withdrawn and another rejected by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under s.483 BNSS, 2023 — Crime No.03 of 2024, Shivaji Nagar P.S., Nanded — Offences punishable under ss.406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 — Informant alleged that the applicant induced him and his family to invest a total of Rs.1,88,44,409 in an investment company on a false promise of handsome returns, which was not returned. Counsel for applicant submitted there was no intent to cheat, the applicant is in jail since January 2024, investigation is over with charge-sheet filed, and Rs.29,00,000 has been deposited in the Special Court (M.P.I.D.) at Nanded. Learned A.P.P. opposed, noting two earlier bail applications were rejected on 10.10.2024 and 08.04.2025 with no change in circumstances. The Court observed that one earlier application was withdrawn and another rejected by it, that there is no new ground or change in circumstances, that the applicant is involved in a serious crime having duped the informant and family for crores of rupees, and rejected the application. Coram: Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J. Decided 4th October, 2025.

2025:BHC-AUG:27855

ba1173.25

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

918 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1173 OF 2025

Shrikant Dnyanoba Gitte VERSUS The State of Maharashtra

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke APP for Respondent: Mr. R.S. Wani Advocate to assist the A.P.P. : Mr. D.M. Shinde

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 4^th OCTOBER, 2025.

PER COURT :-

This is an application for granting regular bail under section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in connection with crime No. 03 of 2024 registered with Shivaji Nagar police station, Nanded, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the I.P.C. and under section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

Learned advocate for the applicant pointed out the report in which it is averred by the informant that he and his family members are duped by the applicant. The applicant convinced the informant and his family members to invest the amount in the investment company and therefore, the informant and his family invested total

ba1173.25

-2-

amount of Rs.1,88,44,409/-. The applicant gave false promise of handsome return of the amount but the amount is not returned by the applicant. Therefore, the report is lodged.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there was no intention to cheat the informant and his family members, as it was investment for getting handsome return. The applicant is arrested and is in jail since January, 2024 and therefore, he could not make the arrangement for return of the amount. Entire investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed. Learned advocate submitted that the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- in the Special Court (M.P.I.D.) at Nanded. The applicant will not flee away from the trial. The trial will take a long period. Learned advocate therefore, prayed that the application be allowed.

Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State, assisted by Mr. Shinde, learned advocate, has strongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious crime. The report itself establishes that the essential ingredients of the provisions of the M.P.I.D. Act are attracted against the applicant. The earlier two applications preferred by the applicant for bail were rejected on 10.10.2024 and 08.04.2025, and there is no change in circumstances to allow the present application. It is, therefore, lastly prayed that the

ba1173.25

-3-

application be rejected.

Perused the charge sheet, particularly, the F.I.R. and other documents. The applicant is involved in serious crime and duped the informant and his family members for Crores of Rupees. When an earlier application was withdrawn and another was rejected by this Court, now there is no new ground to consider the present applicant’s prayer for bail, as there is no change in circumstances. Considering all these aspects, the application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the following order.

Application is rejected.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/