Atul Shivaji Kolhe vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

901-BA-3458-25.odt

¶2

1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3458 OF 2025

¶5

ATUL SHIVAJI KOLHE VERSUS

¶6

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Subhash S. Jadhawar and Mr. T. S. Jadhawar Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand S. Shelgaonkar Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anand S. Patil

¶8

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 11-03-2026

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

The applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.49 of 2025 registered with Karmala Police Station, Solapur (Rural), District Solapur, dated 22.01.2025, for the ofences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Sections 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. In connection with said crime, the applicant is arrested on 27.05.2025. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet is iled 11.07.2025.

¶11

The prosecution case is that the applicant represented to the complainant that his relative owned a company named Bricks Solution and proposed an investment scheme promising a monthly proit. The applicant and his wife personally visited the

¶12

901-BA-3458-25.odt

¶13

2

¶14

complainant’s residence to explain the details of this scheme. Convinced by the proposal, the complainant invested amount by transferring the funds into the account of Bricks Solution and initially received interest payments as promised. However, when the complainant, subsequently, requested the return of the principal amount and accrued interest due to a inancial need, the applicant began providing evasive responses and avoided the demand. Thereafter, the oice of the co-accused was closed permanently. Upon approaching the applicant and the co-accused to reclaim the deposits, the complainant’s request for a refund was latly denied. The applicant and the co-accused acted in furtherance of a common intention to hatch a conspiracy. They allegedly cheated and duped multiple individuals for a total sum of Rs.1,14,00,000/-. Despite frequent demands from the informant and other investors/witnesses for the return of their investments, the applicant alongwith co-accused committed acts of cheating and forgery and report in that regard was lodged.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime wherein no speciic role assigned to him regarding the collection or misappropriation of funds. It is contended that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has already been iled; as the case primarily relies on documentary evidence already collected by the investigating agency, therefore, further custodial interrogation of

¶16

901-BA-3458-25.odt

¶17

3

¶18

the applicant is unjustiied. The applicant has no connection to Bricks Solution, serving neither as a Director nor an Agent, and has received no inancial beneit from the company. Pertinently, all the depositors transferred the funds directly into the company’s bank accounts. Further, the applicant is also a victim and one of the depositors, having invested Rs.17 Lakh in the same entity. The applicant, a primary teacher, is in custody since 27.05.2025.

¶19

It is further submitted that accused No.1 is not related to the applicant. Considering that there is no established nexus between the applicant and the alleged ofence, and since no purpose would be served by indeinite incarceration of the applicant. Hence, lastly prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

¶20

The learned A.P.P. opposed the application, submitting that the ofence is an economic ofence and serious in nature. Prima facie suicient material exists against the applicant. The accused have cheated the depositors and investors of the said company. The huge public money is involved in the crime. The accused will pressure on the informant and the investors. The learned A.P.P. further expressed apprehension that releasing the applicant on bail would present a signiicant risk of tampering with the evidence and intimidating the informant and witnesses. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

¶21

Having heard the respective counsel and perused the

¶22

901-BA-3458-25.odt

¶23

4

¶24

material on record, it is, prima facie, evident that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused primarily by virtue of relative of one of the Directors of the company. However, the chargesheet lacks any direct evidence to indicate that the applicant personally induced or lured the depositors into the scheme. Furthermore, the investigation reveals no personal money trail connecting the applicant to the alleged ofence; rather, the inancial scrutiny is predominantly conined to the Director of the company.

¶25

Further, prima facie, there is insuicient material to indicate that any funds were siphoned or misappropriated for the applicant’s personal use, establishing that the applicant was not involved in the day-to-day management of the said company. As such, further incarceration of the applicant would be unjustiied.

¶26

Keeping in view the fact that the investigation is completed and the chargesheet is iled coupled with the prolonged incarceration of the applicant since 27.05.2025. The apprehension expressed by the learned A.P.P. can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions.

¶27

Hence, the following order:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The criminal bail application is allowed.

¶30

(ii) Applicant, Atul Shivaji Kolhe, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

¶31

901-BA-3458-25.odt

¶32

5

¶33

Thousand), with one solvent surety of the like amount, in Crime No.49 of 2025 registered with Karmala Police Station, Solapur (Rural), District Solapur, dated 22.01.2025, for the ofences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Sections 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, on the conditions that;

¶34

(a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

¶35

(b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court.

¶36

(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Cards to the Investigation Oicer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of the applicant and two of the near relatives.

¶37

(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶38

(iii) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent and conined to this application and the trial court shall not be inluenced by the same.

¶39

rrd

¶40

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]

Atul Shivaji Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Shivaji Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Babu Londhe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

B. Kunal Kumar Dora vs Union of India, Department of Revenue Cbic Pune (Narcotic Cell) Customs and Anr.

Pradip Alias Dipak Sunil Haribhakt vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swapnil Tanaji Kshirsagar vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Ramesh Bhingarde vs State of Maharashtra

Sunil Babu Londhe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.