Deepak Kumar Dhulichand Jain vs the Senior Inspector of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Deepak Kumar Dhulichand Jain vs the Senior Inspector of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail Application allowed: the Applicant to be released on bail on executing a PR Bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; provisional cash bail of Rs. 2,00,000/- permitted for immediate release with an undertaking to furnish the two local sureties within four weeks. Stringent conditions imposed: intimation of residence/contact number to Trial Court and Police Station within one week; monthly presence at the jurisdictional Police Station on the first Monday (9 am-12 pm) and as required by the Investigating Officer till framing of charges; presence before the Trial Court on fixed dates; no leaving the country's territorial jurisdiction without prior permission and surrender of passport within one week of release; no entering the jurisdictional limits of Mumbai, Thane and Palghar during the trial save to attend the Trial Court and concerned Police Station; any attempt to influence/threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence to result in cancellation of bail; Trial Court free to impose further conditions; infraction entails cancellation. Since the Bail Application stands disposed of, nothing survives in the Interim Applications and they too are disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant (Accused No. 4, Deepak Kumar Dhulichand Jain) should be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R.No. 41 of 2025 registered with the Property Cell, DCB, CID, Crime Branch, Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 111, 115(2), 3(5), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, 1999. +1 more

Court's answer

Although the Applicant, being a Chartered Accountant, is bound to have knowledge of his son's nefarious activities, this cannot be the only ground to deny bail to him.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the only role attributed to the present Applicant is being present in the office while his son Ankit Jain and co-accused sold schemes and assured victims of high returns; the serious allegations of duping the witnesses lie largely against the co-accused Ankit Jain, Omkar Singh and Hetul Ranka, and the Applicant's role appears to be one of supporting his son, albeit concealing and screening the son's activities.

Key takeaways

There is no complaint made by the witnesses against the present Applicant; the witnesses' complaints are directed against the co-accused.ratio¶¶124
Despite the large number of witnesses and the Forensic Audit Report being awaited, since all bank accounts stand seized and bank statements are already before the Forensic Auditors, the interest of justice will be sub-served by granting the Applicant bail on stringent conditions.ratio¶¶136
The observations made in the judgment are prima facie and confined to this Application; the learned Trial Judge is to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by these observations.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., 8 January 2026) in Bail Application No. 4161 of 2025: Deepak Kumar Dhulichand Jain, a 65-year-old Chartered Accountant and Accused No. 4, father of principal accused Ankit Jain, enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 41 of 2025 dated 17 June 2025 (Property Cell, DCB, CID, Crime Branch, Mumbai) for offences under Sections 111, 115(2), 3(5), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, 1999, arising from an alleged ponzi scheme run through M/s. A. J. Enterprises (paper factory at Boisar) promising high returns, with 122+ depositor-victims. His earlier bail application had been rejected by the City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay on 22 July 2025. Prima facie, the only role attributed to him was presence in the office assuring depositors of good returns; Rs.1.52 crores came into his bank account and Rs.1.72 crores was refunded to the firm; no complaint by witnesses is made against him; presumed knowledge, as a Chartered Accountant, of his son's activities cannot be the only ground to deny bail; the serious allegations and kingpin role lie against co-accused Ankit Jain, Omkar Singh and Hetul Ranka. Bail ordered on PR bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties, provisional cash bail permitted, monthly police-station reporting till framing of charges, surrender of passport, bar on entering Mumbai/Thane/Palghar during trial, and anti-tampering condition; the sixteen interim applications of intervenor victims/witnesses disposed of. Observations expressly prima facie and confined to the application.