Allowed

Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026ABA/224/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court anticipatory bail GRANTED (allowed) — Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application No.224 of 2026, decided 28-01-2026 by N.R. Borkar, J. Crime No.164 of 2018, Azad Maidan PS; IPC Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 (cheating, forgery, impersonation of Government of India officials); alleged fraud of Rs.59,00,000/- via American Express Bank

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed: upon any arrest in Crime No.164 of 2018 (Azad Maidan Police Station), release on furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; Applicant t

Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 910-ABA 224-26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.224 OF 2026

¶3

Kuldeep Sharma … Applicant V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwari for the Applicant. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent-State. API Shirish Shivaji Shinde, Azad Maidan PS is present.

¶6

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2026

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

This is an Application for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.164 of 2018 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶10

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant and other coaccused by impersonating to be high ranking officials of the Government of India defrauded the first informant to the tune of Rs.59,00,000/- on the pretext that they would get his American Express Bank Card activated.

¶11

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that he has never met

1 of 2

Mugdha

2 910-ABA 224-26.doc

the first informant. It is further submitted that the Applicant was not aware about the registration of the crime. It is submitted that the prosecution has already filed chargesheet against the other co-accused.

¶17

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that there are specific allegations against the present Applicant in the FIR. It is submitted that since the date of registration of crime, the applicant is absconding. It is submitted that considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

I have perused the chargesheet. The allegations of impersonation and inducement are against the co-accused. Considering the said facts, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

i. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶21

ii. In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Crime No.164 of 2018 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶22

iii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called for by the investigating officer for the purpose of further investigation, if any.

¶23

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

2 of 2

Mugdha

Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases