Pintu @ Nimba Ramesh Koli vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Pintu @ Nimba Ramesh Koli vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Pintu @ Nimba Ramesh Koli enlarged on bail in Crime No. 824 of 2023 (Shirur Police Station, District Pune) on a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; conditions imposed: (a) attend the concerned police station as and when required; (b) not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant in Crime No. 824 of 2023 registered with Shirur Police Station, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. +1 more

Court's answer

Application allowed: the applicant is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 824 of 2023 registered with Shirur Police Station, District Pune, on executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to the conditions of attending the concerned police station as and when required and of not tampering with the evidence or attempting to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Ratio / Principle

The agreement produced on record was executed between the first informant and the deceased father of the applicant, whose death led to the applicant's involvement in the crime.

Key takeaways

Evidence is required to prove the role of the applicant in the present crime.ratio¶5
The applicant's detention for more than eight months and the absence of progress in the trial were grounds weighing in favour of granting bail.ratio¶5
The observations in the order were made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court is to decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by these observations.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted. High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Shivkumar Dige, J.), Criminal Bail Application No. 3975 of 2025, decided 29 January 2026: enlarged applicant Pintu @ Nimba Ramesh Koli on regular bail in Crime No. 824 of 2023 (Shirur Police Station, District Pune; Sections 420, 406 read with 34, Indian Penal Code 1860) on a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to attending the police station as and when required and refraining from tampering with evidence or contacting/influencing the complainant and witnesses. Grounds relied upon: the sugarcane-cutting agreement (under which an advance of 27 lakhs was allegedly taken) was executed between the first informant and the applicant's deceased father, evidence being required to prove the applicant's role; and the applicant had been in custody for over eight months with no progress in the trial. The Court clarified that its observations were made only for the purposes of the bail decision and directed that the Trial Court decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by this order.

903-BA-3975-2025 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3975 OF 2025

Pintu @ Nimba Ramesh Koli ….Applicant versus The State Of Maharashtra ….Respondent

_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Onkar A. Wable i/b. Mr. Akshay Tilve, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 29^th JANUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 824 of 2023 registered with Shirur Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

It is prosecution’s case that the applicant and his father entered into an agreement with the first informant for cutting sugarcane and they have taken an advance amount of 27 lakhs from the first informant, but₹ did not do the work as per the agreement.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.01.31 10:53:09 +0530

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than eight months. There is no progress in the trial. The agreement of the first informant was executed with the father of the applicant. As the father of the applicant died, the applicant’s

Page 1 of 3

903-BA-3975-2025 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

name is involved in the present crime. The applicant has no antecedents and requested to allow the application.

Learned APP submitted that the applicant was instrumental in the said crime. He was aware about the agreement executed between the first informant and his father and the amount from the first informant. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond and requested to reject the application.

5.q I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The agreement produced on record shows that it was executed between the first informant and the deceased father of the applicant. To prove the role of the applicant in the present crime, evidence is required. The applicant is behind bars for more than eight months and there is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 824 of 2023 registered with Shirur Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

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

Page 2 of 3

903-BA-3975-2025 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

(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.

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