Sushant Subhas Petkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Sushant Subhas Petkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail should be granted to the Applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with C.R. No.470 of 2025 registered with Ravet Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. +1 more

Court's answer

On the Court's assessment of the seriousness of the offence and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the Anticipatory Bail Application was dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The offence is very serious: out of the total amount of Rs.2,18,00,000/- obtained from the First Informant by falsely representing that it would be invested in shares, a very substantial amount of Rs.1,24,87,393/- has been paid to the Applicant's relatives; accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary.

Key takeaways

The Court noted that the deposit statement made by the Applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadgaon-Maval, Pune was voluntarily made, and observed that even if that statement were ignored, the offence would remain very serious.obiter¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.), 22 January 2026: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3527 of 2025 filed by Sushant Subhas Petkar under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of C.R. No. 470 of 2025 (Ravet Police Station, Pune) for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — DISMISSED. Prosecution case: of Rs. 2,18,00,000/- paid by the First Informant to the Applicant for share-market investment, Rs. 1,24,87,393/- was allegedly not invested and was given to the First Informant's relatives. The Applicant had earlier secured protection from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadgaon-Maval, Pune (order dated 1 December 2025) on his voluntary undertaking to deposit Rs. 1,24,87,393/-, and thereafter contended before this Court that the said condition was punitive. The Court held the statement voluntary but, treating the offence as very serious and concluding that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant was necessary, dismissed the application.

912-ABA-3527-2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3527 OF 2025

Sushant Subhas Petkar …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

Mr. Tanmay A. Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Pavan S. Patil, for the Applicant. Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent-State. Ms. N. S. Khaire, WPSI, attached to Ravet Police Station, Pune, present.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 22^nd JANUARY 2026

PC:-

Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Ms. Newton, learned APP for the Respondent No.1.

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.470 of 2025 registered with Ravet Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Page 1

Sonali

912-ABA-3527-2025.DOC

As per the prosecution case, total amount of Rs.2,18,00,000/- were paid by the First Informant to the Applicant for investment in share market and out of the said amount, Rs.1,24,87,393/- has not been invested in the share market and has been given by the Applicant to the relatives of the First Informant. The offence is very serious.

It is further significant to note that the Applicant has voluntarily stated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadgaon-Maval, Pune that he would deposit the said amount of Rs.1,24,87,393/- before the learned Sessions Court, VadgaonMaval, Pune and on that condition, by order dated 1^st December 2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadgaon-Maval, Pune, has granted protection. However, after obtaining the said order dated 1^st December 2025 by making voluntary statement about deposit of the said amount, thereafter, the Applicant has approached this Court stating that the said condition is punitive condition.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the said statement was voluntarily made by the Applicant. Even the said

Page 2

Sonali

912-ABA-3527-2025.DOC

statement is ignored, then also the offence is very serious as huge amount of Rs.2,18,00,000/- was obtained from the First Informant by falsely representing that the said amount would be invested in the shares and out of the total amount very substantial amount of Rs.1,24,87,393/- has been paid to his relatives. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary.

Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application dismissed.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2026.01.22 19:13:47 +0530

Page 3

Sonali