Dismissed¶42

Eleganz Interiors Limited v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026IA/9/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; N.R. Borkar J.; 06.01.2026; ABA 3590/2025; ABA 3595/2025; Prakash Devegowda; Yogesh Devegowda; directors of M/s. Buildx Interior Products Private Limited; Crime No. 908 of 2025 Dahisar Police Station; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 344, 335, 338, 61, 61(1); fabricated and inflated bills and invoices; kickbacks; Rs. 40,00,000 paid to co-accused Gayatri Rao; Rs. 7.5 crore fraud; complainant M/s. Eleganz Interiors Limited; co-accused Harsh Rama Rao; sub-contract during covid period; custodial interrogation; applications rejected.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the papers of investigation, it appears prima facie that the applicants paid Rs. 40,00,000/- to co-accused Gayatri Rao towards kickbacks. ¶42

Eleganz Interiors Limited vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

79-80-aba-3590-3595-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3590 OF 2025

Prakash Devegowda

…Applicant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2026 IN

¶9

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3590 OF 2025 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3595 OF 2025

¶10

Yogesh Devegowda ...Applicant

¶11

V/s

¶12

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶13

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2026

¶14

Adv. Shon Gadgil, a/w Mr. Aniket Malu, Mr. Amit Icham, Adv. Siddhart N., Advocate for the Applicants and both Applications . Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State in ABA/3590/2025.

¶15

Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent/State in ABA/3595/2025.

¶16

Mr.Jatin Sehgal a/w Mr. Madhav Narayan, Mr. Irfan U., Advocate for the Intervener in IA/9/2026 and IA/8/2026.

¶17

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 06.01.2026.

¶18

Pramod S.Lakare

¶19

1/5

¶20

79-80-aba-3590-3595-2025.doc

¶21

P.C. :

¶22

Mentioned out of turn.

¶23

Both these applications are arising out of one and the same crime and thus they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶24

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 908 of 2025 registered at Dahisar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 344, 335, 338, 61 & 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainantcompany namely M/s. Eleganz Interiors Limited, is engaged in the business of interior decoration. After receiving contracts for Interior decoration, the complainant-company places orders for

¶26

raw materials required for the said work. One of the co-accused in the present crime, namely Harsh Rama Rao, was working with the complainant-company as the Head of Operations and later promoted to the post of Senior Project Manager (Vice President).

¶27

Pramod S.Lakare

¶28

2/5

¶29

79-80-aba-3590-3595-2025.doc

¶30

The nature of work of the co-accused Harsh Rama Rao was to establish communication with the clients of the complainantcompany such as contractors and vendors as well as communicate with the other companies providing goods and services to the complainant-company. Furthermore, he was also responsible for supervising the projects undertaken by the complainant-company.

¶31

The applicants in the present applications are the directors of M/s. Buildx Interior Products Private Limited. It is alleged that the co-accused Harsh Rama Rao, in collusion with the present applicants have prepared false and fabricated bills and invoices for supply of services and goods to the complainantcompany, thereby compelling the complainant-company to pay the inflated bills under the guise of genuine transactions. It is alleged that the present applicants had paid an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- to the wife of co-accused Harsh Rama Rao who is also co-accused in the present crime, towards kickbacks. The allegations against the present applicants and other co-accused are of defrauding the complainant-company to the tune of Rs.7.5 Crore.

¶32

Pramod S.Lakare

¶33

3/5

¶34

79-80-aba-3590-3595-2025.doc

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the

¶36

learned APP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the first informant/complainant-company.

¶37

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have executed the work as per the purchase orders and accordingly the amounts were paid to them by the complainantcompany. As regards the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- paid to the wife of co-accused Harsh Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the covid period, as the applicants’ company was not in a position to execute the work and thus on the instructions of co-accused Harsh Rama Rao a sub-contract was given to co-accused Gayatri Rao to carry out certain work. It is submitted that at that time applicants were not aware that coaccused Gayatri Rao is the wife of co-accused Harsh Rama Rao. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was paid to coaccused Gayatri Rao towards the work carried out by her. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are no other criminal antecedents against the applicants.

¶38

Pramod S.Lakare

¶39

4/5

¶40

79-80-aba-3590-3595-2025.doc

¶41

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState and the learned counsel for the complainant-company submit that fabricated and inflated bills and invoices were prepared by the present applicants. The learned counsel for the complainant-company has drawn my attention to the application filed by co-accused Gayatri Rao, the wife of co-accused Harsh Rama Rao before the Sessions Court, wherein she has stated that she is a housewife. It is submitted that the co-accused Gayatri Rao has received total amount of Rs.3,19,27,530/- towards kickbacks.

¶42

I have perused the papers of investigation. Prima-facie, it appears that the applicants have paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to co-accused Gayatri Rao towards kickbacks. The complainant-company is defrauded to the tune of Rs.7.5 Crores. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. The applications are rejected.

¶43

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶44

Pramod S.Lakare

¶45

5/5

Eleganz Interiors Limited v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eleganz Interiors Limited v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Raghunath Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra

Kulsum W/O Faiyaz Khan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Pooja Dilip Seth vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Gabrial Dcosta vs State of Maharashtra

Sandip Krishna Kambale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parshuram Yallappa Kakshagiri vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.