Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Prashant Mulidhar Raje vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Home
Bombay HC
2026
Prashant Mulidhar Raje vs the State of MaharashtraPrashant Mulidhar Raje v. the State of Maharashtra

Dismissed¶27

Prashant Mulidhar Raje v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Feb 2026ABA/352/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Anticipatory Bail Application No.352 of 2026 (with Interim Application No.503 of 2026); decided 25 February 2026 by N.R. Borkar, J.; anticipatory bail rejected. Accused: Prashant Murlidhar Raje, Accounts Manager, Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited; first informant/Chairman intervened. Offences: Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Crime No.770 of 2025, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) Police Station. Facts: fraudulent vendor bills surfaced in society audit; alleged misappropriation Rs.1,39,55,036/-; witness statements of Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity showed procurement of false bills; Applicant implicated in two more similar crimes. Counsel: Sofiya Shaikh (Applicant); S. R. Agarkar, APP (State); Shashvat Jariwala with Drishti Israni, i/by Auroma Law (Intervenor-first informant). Result: application dismissed; interim application disposed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the statements of witnesses Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity, it appeared to the Court that the present Applicant had procured false bills from them. ¶27

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No.770 of 2025 (Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station) for offences under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from alleged preparation of fraudulent bills and misappropriation of Rs.1,39,55,036/-, should be released on anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

On perusal of the statements of witnesses Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity, it appeared to the Court that the present Applicant had procured false bills from them.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, including that the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of a similar nature, the Court was not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail and rejected the Anticipatory Bail Application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused. The Applicant, Accounts Manager with Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited, sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No.770 of 2025 of Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the allegation that during the society's audit he was found to have prepared fraudulent bills for certain work and misappropriated Rs.1,39,55,036/-. Perusing the statements of witnesses Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity, N.R. Borkar, J. found that the Applicant had procured false bills from them; the Court also noted the Applicant's involvement in two more crimes of a similar nature. Holding that it was not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court rejected the Anticipatory Bail Application; the pending Interim Application No.503 of 2026 was disposed of.

A

1 100-ABA 352-26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2026

Prashant Murlidhar Raje … Applicant Vs.

State of Maharashtra … Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2026 IN

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2026

Ms. Sofiya Shaikh for the Applicant.

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Shashvat Jariwala a/w Drishti Israni i/by Auroma Law for the Intervenor-first informant.

PSI Rampure, IO, WPSI More, Pairavi, BKC Police Station are present.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2026

P.C. :

Mentioned out of turn.

This is an Application for anticipatory bail.

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.770 of 2025 registered with Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

1 of 3

Mugdha

2 100-ABA 352-26.doc

The Applicant was working as Accounts Manager with the Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited. The first informant is the Chairman of the Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited. It is alleged that during the audit of the said society, it was found that the applicant had prepared fraudulent bills in respect of certain work and misappropriated the amount of Rs.1,39,55,036/-.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for the Intervenor-first informant.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Society used to verify the work done by the concerned vendors and then only used to issue cheque in the name of the concerned vendors. It is submitted that with some ulterior motive, false allegations are made against the present Applicant. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for the Intervenor submit that false bills were procured by the Applicant from the various vendors, though they did not carry out any work. It is submitted that there are statements of vendors to that effect . It is submitted that the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

2 of 3

Mugdha

3 100-ABA 352-26.doc

I have perused the statements of witnesses, viz., Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity. It appears from the statement of the said witnesses that the present Applicant had procured false bills from them. The Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

Pending Interim Application stands disposed of.

3 of 3

Mugdha

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No.770 of 2025 (Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station) for offences under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from alleged preparation of fraudulent bills and misappropriation of Rs.1,39,55,036/-, should be released on anticipatory bail.¶15
The court held
On perusal of the statements of witnesses Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity, it appeared to the Court that the present Applicant had procured false bills from them.ratio¶27

Statutes considered

6 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023318(4)¶16 314¶16 318(2)¶16 336(2)¶16 336(3)¶16 344¶16

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Crime No.770 of 2025 registered with Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the Applicant is apprehending arrest therein.¶16
Prior proceeding
Allegation that during the audit of Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited, where the Applicant worked as Accounts Manager, he prepared fraudulent bills and misappropriated Rs.1,39,55,036/-.¶20
Prior proceeding
The Court noted, on the submissions of the Learned APP and the Intervenor's counsel, that the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of a similar nature.¶27

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Prashant Murlidhar Raje¶4
Sofiya Shaikh
respondent
State of Maharashtra¶5
S. R. Agarkar
intervenor
Intervenor-first informant¶10
Shashvat Jariwala, Drishti Israni

Coram

AI extract

N.R. Borkarauthor¶12

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 10 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 6 Feb 2026
Case no.: ABA/352/2026
CNR: HCBM010065082026
Topic: Cheating and Forgery
Bench: N. R. Borkar
Disposal: Rejected
Case type: Anticipatory Bail Application

All orders in this case

4 orders share this CNR

10 Feb 2026Order 1 — this page · N. R. Borkar
12 Feb 2026Order 2 · N. R. Borkar
17 Feb 2026Order 3 · N. R. Borkar
25 Feb 2026Order 4 · N. R. Borkar

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N. R. Borkar

Guddu Mohammad Khan vs the State of Maharashtra
9 Feb 2026
Arrti Girajashankar Trivedi vs State of Maharashtra
9 Feb 2026
Mahendra Ramdas Patel vs State of Maharashtra
9 Feb 2026
Rizwan Ahmad Jalauddin Shah vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
10 Feb 2026
Rubina Mohammed Arif Shaikh and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra
10 Feb 2026
Vaishali Ramesh Shinde vs State of Maharashtra
10 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Prashant Mulidhar Raje v. the State of Maharashtra, ABA/352/2026 (BOM), decided on 10 February 2026.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes6

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023318(4) · 314 · 318(2) · 336(2) · 336(3) · 344

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Crime No.770 of 2025 registered with Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the Applicant is apprehending arrest therein.
Allegation that during the audit of Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited, where the Applicant worked as Accounts Manager, he prepared fraudulent bills and misappropriated Rs.1,39,55,036/-.

View full history

Bench / Coram

N.R. Borkar

Parties & counsel