Avinash Dnyanoba Bakalikar vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Avinash Dnyanoba Bakalikar vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail in C.R. No. 1 of 2024 on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; applicant to attend the concerned police station as and when required and not to tamper with evidence or contact the complainant/witnesses; all pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Avinash Dnyanoba Bakalikar, should be enlarged on regular bail in C.R. No. 1 of 2024 (Pimpri Chinchwad Cyber Police Station, Pune) for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the I.T. Act, 2000.

Court's answer

The main allegations in the case are against co-accused Ravi Agarwal; the allegations against the applicant are that he received Rs.2 lakhs out of the total fraud amount.

Ratio / Principle

The police seized Rs.1,35,000/- from the applicant and the applicant deposited Rs.65,000/- before the Trial Court to show his bonafides; these recoveries were taken into account in granting bail.

Key takeaways

The applicant had been behind bars for 15 months, and considering these facts (allegations against co-accused, recovered amounts, period of custody) the court proceeded to pass the bail order.ratio¶19
The applicant was ordered to be enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 1 of 2024 registered with Pimpri Chinchwad Cyber Police Station, Pune, on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount.ratio¶21
As a condition of bail, the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 2253 of 2025 — Avinash Dnyanoba Bakalikar v. State of Maharashtra (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Shivkumar Dige, J.; 2 February 2026): Regular bail granted in C.R. No. 1 of 2024 (Pimpri Chinchwad Cyber Police Station, Pune) for offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the I.T. Act, 2000. Prosecution alleged that from 25.07.2024 to 08.10.2024 the applicant and co-accused induced the first informant to invest and cheated him of Rs.19,80,000/-. Finding the main allegations directed against co-accused Ravi Agarwal, with only Rs.2 lakhs attributed to the applicant — of which Rs.1,35,000/- was seized by police and Rs.65,000/- deposited before the Trial Court — and noting 15 months' custody with no trial progress, the court enlarged the applicant on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties, subject to attendance at the police station as required and abstention from tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant/witnesses. Observations were expressly confined to the bail decision, leaving merits to the Trial Court.

26-BA-2253-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2253 OF 2025

Avinash Dnyanoba Bakalikar ….Applicant VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra …..Respondent

Mr. Niranjan Bhavake a/w. Ms. Drishti Madhani, Mr. Anurag Ramekar and Ms. Vaishnavi Chore i/b. Mr. Sushant J. Tayade, Advocates for the Applicant.

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State. PSI – V.U.Patil, Cyber Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, present.

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2026.02.05 KILAJE 10:41:11+0700

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 2^nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 1 of 2024 registered with Pimpri Chinchwad Cyber Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS Act”) and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of I.T.Act, 2000.

It is prosecution’s case that from 25.07.2024 to 08.10.2024, the applicant and co-accused persuaded the first informant to invest the amount in their company and cheated him for Rs.19,80,000/-.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the

Page 1 of 3

26-BA-2253-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

main allegations are against the co-accused. The allegations against the applicant are of receiving two lakhs out of the fraud amount. He has deposited the amount of Rs.65,000/- before the Trial Court to show his bonafide and Rs.1,35,000/- is already seized. The applicant is behind bars for more than 15 months. There is no progress in the trial and requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and coaccused cheated the first informant. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The main allegations are against the co-accused Ravi Agarwal. The allegations against the applicant are that he has received Rs.2 lakhs out of total fraud amount. The police has seized Rs.1,35,000/- from the applicant and the applicant has deposited, Rs.65,000/- before the Trial Court to show his bonafide. The applicant is behind bars for 15 months. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

i. The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 1 of 2024 registered with Pimpri Chinchwad Cyber Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/-

Page 2 of 3

26-BA-2253-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

on furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.

ii. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

iii. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3