Sooraj Kumar Anand Tayade vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

enlargement of the Applicants/Appellants on bail in connection with Judgment and Order dated 17^th April 2025 passed in CBI Special Case No. 109 of 2013 whereby the Applicants/Appellants came to be convicted for the offenses punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,00,000/-respectively.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Applicants/Appellants submits that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and more particularly, the evidence of P.W.2 is wholly unreliable. She drew attention of the Court to the said evidence in order to argue that on the basis of such evidence and more particularly, when the offence came to be registered belatedly, the order of conviction would not sustain against Applicants/Appellants. It is her further submission that in fact the Applicants/Appellants are made scapegoat by the other accused in this crime. Finally, it is argued that the Applicants/Appellants are in jail since 17^th April 2025 and one

¶27

Page 2 of 6 23^rd January, 2026.

¶28

43-IA-1715-2025.DOC

¶29

forth of the sentence out of 5 years is already undergone by them. It is further argued that fine amount imposed by the Trial Court is excessive and hence, the Applicants/Appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail without insisting, deposit of the fine amount as a precondition for grant of bail. She further submits that Accused No. 6 is enlarged on bail and hence, there would be no impediment to enlarge the Applicants/Appellants also, on bail. She places reliance on the following judgments:-

¶30

(ii) Ashvin Chinubhai Shah v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.² ;

¶31

(iii) Nanhe Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh³ .

¶32

Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI opposed the Applications. He drew attention of the Court not only to

¶33

1 (2024) 3 SCC 663

¶34

2 2023:BHC-AS:15114

¶35

3 Cr. Appeal No. 4763 of 2024.

¶36

Page 3 of 6 23^rd January, 2026.

¶37

43-IA-1715-2025.DOC

¶38

the evidence on record but also to the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court more particularly, in paragraphs 51 to 54, 63 to 65 and 78 of the impugned Judgment and Order. It his submission that the Trial Court has recorded findings to arrive at the conclusion that this is a case of criminal conspiracy and the present Applicants/Appellants are the beneficiaries of the crime. It is his further submission that having regard to the amount involved in the fraud, it can't be said that the fine imposed by the Trial Court is excessive.

¶39

At this stage, the Court is required to see not only the time, which is spent by the Applicants/Appellants in jail till date but also any fair chance of success at the time of decision of the Appeal. Even if it is accepted that the Applicants/ Appellants are in jail from 17^th April 2025 and the sentence imposed on them is 5 years, by that itself, doesn't become a ground for enlargement of the Applicants/Appellants on bail.

¶40

This Court is not expected to go into the details of the evidence recorded by the Trial Court and render findings thereon at this stage. However, prima facie perusal of the

¶41

Page 4 of 6 23^rd January, 2026.

¶42

43-IA-1715-2025.DOC

¶43

record so also the impugned Judgment and Order indicates there is reason to believe that the present Applicants/Appellants were part of the larger conspiracy to defraud the nationalized banks. The amount involved in this crime runs to Rs.10,27,02,004/-. Similarly, there is evidence to indicate that the Appellant - Nikhil Girish Patt, who is proprietor of Madhav Enterprises, is beneficiary of Letters of Credit, which were proved to be a fabricated documents.

¶44

The Learned Trial Court in paragraphs 51 to 54 has dealt with the evidence on record and held involvement of said Applicant/Appellant in the crime. Pertinently, there is no dispute made by both of the Applicants/Appellants with regard to transfer of the amounts in their accounts. There is evidence to indicate that the Co-accused - Damodar Kamath was paid money by the Applicant/Appellant- Sooraj Kumar Anand Tayade (Accused No.7). Thus, prima facie, there is evidence to show involvement of the Applicants/Appellants in the crime. On the face of it, the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court is supported by the evidence on record.

¶45

Page 5 of 6 23^rd January, 2026.

¶46

43-IA-1715-2025.DOC

¶47

Insofar as the imposition of the fine amount is concerned, having regard to the amount involved in the fraud and the amounts transferred in the accounts of the Applicants/Appellants, this Court finds no substance in the contention of counsel for the Applicants/Appellants that the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court is excessive.

¶48

As a result of above discussion, the Applications stand dismissed.

¶49

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶50

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2026.01.28 17:53:07 +0530

¶51

Page 6 of 6 23^rd January, 2026.

Sooraj Kumar Anand Tayade v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sooraj Kumar Anand Tayade v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Biharlal Sitaram Jaiswar and Anr.

Shashikant Rambhau Sonavane vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai vs Kanchan Ramesh @ Chandrama Pal and Ors.

Mohd. Shahad Mohd Abbas Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs Usha Sahebrao Gaikwad and Ors.

Vandana Kisan Devgirikar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.