Snehal Krishna Kamble vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Snehal Krishna Kamble vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to Sandip Krishna Kambale (ABA No.2259 of 2025) and Archana Snehal Kamble (ABA No.2392 of 2025) in Crime No.186 of 2025: on arrest, release on a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to attending the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating officer and co-operating in the investigation; the anticipatory bail application of Snehal Krishna Kamble (ABA No.3491 of 2025) is rejected.

¶Order clause (iii)

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Snehal Krishna Kamble (ABA No.3491 of 2025), against whom the main allegations lie — prima facie inducement of investors with promises of lucrative returns and defraudation of Rs.1,76,00,000/- in Crime No.186 of 2025. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found, prima facie from the papers of investigation, that the applicant in ABA No.3491 of 2025 (Snehal Krishna Kamble) had promised the first informant and other investors lucrative returns and defrauded them of Rs.1,76,00,000/-; considering the nature of the crime, he was not released on anticipatory bail (application rejected).

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie there are no allegations of either inducement or promised lucrative returns against the applicants in ABAs Nos.2259 and 2392 of 2025 (Sandip Krishna Kambale and Archana Snehal Kamble); in that view, the Court inclined to release them on anticipatory bail and allowed both applications.

Key takeaways

Condition of the grant: the released applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and when called for by the investigating officer and shall co-operate in the investigation.ratio¶Order clause (iv)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.R. Borkar, J.), common order dated 29.01.2026 disposing of three anticipatory bail applications arising out of one crime — Crime No.186 of 2025, APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai — for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. Prosecution alleged that at a 04.01.2025 seminar of Snehalniti Company the ABA 3491/2025 applicant passed himself off as owner and induced the first informant (who availed a Rs.50,000/- loan to invest, recovered only Rs.15,000/- EMI, with Rs.35,000/- balance unpaid) and other investors with promises of lucrative returns; aggregate alleged defraudation Rs.1,76,00,000/- (Learned APP: 160 investors). Perusing investigation papers, the Court found the main allegations against Snehal Krishna Kamble — prima facie promise of lucrative returns and defraudation of Rs.1,76,00,000/- — and, considering the nature of the crime, rejected his anticipatory bail. Finding prima facie no allegations of inducement or promised returns against co-applicants Sandip Krishna Kambale (ABA 2259/2025) and Archana Snehal Kamble (ABA 2392/2025), the Court allowed their applications: release on arrest on PR Bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount, attendance at the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating officer, and co-operation with the investigation.

1 908-ABA 3491-25 @ ABA 2259-25 @ ABA 2392-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3491 OF 2025

Snehal Krishna Kamble … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2259 OF 2025

Sandip Krishna Kambale … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2392 OF 2025

Archana Snehal Kamble … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Digitallysigned by ----MUGDHA MUGDHAMANOJ MANOJPARANJAPE Ms. Rashmi Kulkarni i/by Kale Pratiksha for the Applicants. PARANJAPE Date: 2026.01.30 Mr. B. V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent-State. 18:12:22 +0530 Mr. Manoj P. Inamdar for the Intervenor.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 29TH JANUARY 2026

P.C. :

As these Applications for anticipatory bail are arising out of one and the same crime, they are being disposed of by this common order.

The Applicants in these Applications are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.186 of 2025 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi

1 of 4

Mugdha

2 908-ABA 3491-25 @ ABA 2259-25 @ ABA 2392-25.doc

Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 04^th January 2025, the first informant attended a seminar conducted by Snehalniti Company. At that time, the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3491 of 2025 introduced himself as the owner of the said company and induced the first informant and the other investors to invest in the scheme of his company to receive lucrative returns thereon. Trusting the assurances of the Applicants, the first informant agreed to avail a loan from Bajaj Fiances for the purpose of investing in the Applicant’s company. Accordingly, a loan of Rs.50,000/- was availed in the name of the first informant. Subsequently, upon persistent inquiries at the said company, the first informant received Rs.15,000/- towards the loan EMI. However, the first informant did not receive any profitable returns as promised by the Applicants, neither was the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- refunded to her. The allegations against the present Applicants and other co-accused are of defrauding the first informant and in the similar manner the other investors to the tune of Rs.1,76,00,000/-.

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

Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the amount was accepted towards imparting training in relation to business related

2 of 4

Mugdha

3 908-ABA 3491-25 @ ABA 2259-25 @ ABA 2392-25.doc

issues. Learned Counsel for the Applicants, in support of the said submissions, has drawn my attention to the sample agreement executed by the first informant and other investors. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that as regards the Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.2259 of 2025 and 2392 of 2025, they have no concern with the alleged crime. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the Applicants are ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the present Applicants in connivance with each other have defrauded 160 investors to the tune of Rs.1,76,00,000/-. It is submitted that the first informant and the other investors were made to avail loans for making the said investments. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.

I have perused the papers of investigation. The main allegations are against the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3491 of 2025. Prima-facie from the papers of investigation, it appears that the said Applicant promised the first informant and the other investors lucrative returns on their investments and defrauded them to the tune of Rs.1,76,00,000/-. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3491 of 2025 on anticipatory bail. However, as regards the Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.2259 of 2025 and 2392 of 2025 are concerned, primafacie there are no allegations of either inducement or that they promised some lucrative returns to first informant or other investors on their

3 of 4

Mugdha

4 908-ABA 3491-25 @ ABA 2259-25 @ ABA 2392-25.doc

investment. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.2259 of 2025 and 2392 of 2025 on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed:

ORDER

i. Anticipatory Bail Application No.3491 of 2025 is rejected.

ii. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.2259 of 2025 and 2392 of 2025 are allowed.

iii. In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2259 of 2025, namely, Sandip Krishna Kambale and the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2392 of 2025, namely, Archana Snehal Kamble in Crime No.186 of 2025 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

iv. The Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.2259 of 2025 and 2392 of 2025 shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called for by the investigating officer and shall co-operate in the investigation.

The Anticipatory Bail Applications are disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

4 of 4

Mugdha