Shrikrishna Sawanta Kabade vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Shrikrishna Sawanta Kabade vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Shrikrishna Sawanta Kabade, arrested on 22.12.2024 in Crime No.157 of 2024 (Sangli City Police Station), is entitled to regular bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Since co-accused Suhas Appasaheb Patil's bail was already rejected by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.3248 of 2025 (order dated 11.02.2026) and the applicant stands on a similar footing, he is likewise not entitled to be admitted to bail.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the record including the chargesheet, prima facie the applicant with co-accused defrauded several investors including the informant of Rs.2,53,24,980 collected on account of share-market investments by promising unrealistic returns.

Key takeaways

Prima facie the applicant is held responsible for the alleged offence and is responsible as contemplated in Section 3 of the MPID Act; he proactively participated in the commission of the offence while siphoning amounts deposited by investors.ratio¶24
The record substantiates that the applicant was the designated partner of the firm, having lured the informant to invest with co-accused; there is nothing on record indicating he opposed or attempted to safeguard the depositors' interest.ratio¶32
Money trails occurred between the applicant and the co-accused, furnishing prima facie material to establish the common intention shared by the applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench (Coram: Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.; decision dated 11-03-2026) — REJECTION OF REGULAR BAIL. Applicant Shrikrishna Sawanta Kabade, arrested 22.12.2024 in FIR dated 30.03.2024 / Crime No.157 of 2024 of Sangli City Police Station (Sections 420, 409, 406 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors Act), sought regular bail. Prosecution case: between 01.07.2021 and 29.03.2024 the applicant, with accused Nos.1 and 3, incorporated 'Ininity S.U. Ventures LLP' at Sangli as partners/directors, induced the informant and the public to invest in attractive schemes promising high profits/interest/dividends, issued blank cheques and promissory notes as security, and misappropriated Rs.2,53,24,980/-; chargesheet filed against accused Nos.1 to 7. Prima facie findings of this Court: (i) applicant with co-accused defrauded several investors including the informant of Rs.2,53,24,980 collected for share-market investments promising unrealistic returns; (ii) applicant is responsible as contemplated in Section 3 MPID Act and proactively participated, siphoning investor deposits; (iii) record substantiates he was the designated partner, with nothing showing attempts to safeguard depositors; (iv) money trails between applicant and co-accused establish prima facie common intention; (v) parity with co-accused Suhas Appasaheb Patil whose bail was rejected in Criminal Bail Application No.3248 of 2025 vide order dated 11.02.2026. Reliance placed on Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 — economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and massive diversion of public money stand on a different footing. Held: entrustment of money, dishonest misappropriation and fraudulent intention at inception prima facie established; strong prima facie case under Section 409 IPC (potential punishment 10 years or life, plus fine); bail application rejected. Criminal Interim Application No.95 of 2026 (by Prashant Mahesh Mohnani, Applicant/Informant) disposed of.