Capital Business Co. Operative Society Ltd, through Mr… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Capital Business Co. Operative Society Ltd, through Mr… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No.770 of 2025 of Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3) and 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (alleged procurement of fraudulent bills and misappropriation of Rs.1,39,55,036/-), is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

On perusal of the statements of witnesses Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity, it appeared to the Court that the present Applicant had procured false bills from them, and the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail and rejected the Anticipatory Bail Application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused — Bombay High Court (N.R. Borkar, J.), 25 February 2026. The Applicant, working as Accounts Manager with Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited, apprehended arrest in Crime No.770 of 2025 of Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3) and 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that during the audit of the society it was found that he had prepared fraudulent bills in respect of certain work and misappropriated Rs.1,39,55,036/-. The Applicant contended that the society verified vendors' work before issuing cheques and that false allegations were made with ulterior motive, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as he was willing to cooperate. The State (APP S. R. Agarkar) and the intervenor-first informant (the society's Chairman) opposed, stating false bills were procured from vendors who did no work, vendor statements existed, and the Applicant was involved in two more similar crimes. Perusing the statements of Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity, the Court held it appeared the Applicant had procured false bills from them and, considering the overall facts and circumstances, declined anticipatory bail and rejected Anticipatory Bail Application No.352 of 2026; the pending Interim Application No.503 of 2026 was disposed of.

1 100-ABA 352-26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2026

Prashant Murlidhar Raje … Applicant Vs.

State of Maharashtra … Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2026 IN

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2026

Ms. Sofiya Shaikh for the Applicant.

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Shashvat Jariwala a/w Drishti Israni i/by Auroma Law for the Intervenor-first informant.

PSI Rampure, IO, WPSI More, Pairavi, BKC Police Station are present.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2026

P.C. :

Mentioned out of turn.

This is an Application for anticipatory bail.

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.770 of 2025 registered with Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 314, 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

1 of 3

Mugdha

2 100-ABA 352-26.doc

The Applicant was working as Accounts Manager with the Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited. The first informant is the Chairman of the Capital Business Co-operative Society Limited. It is alleged that during the audit of the said society, it was found that the applicant had prepared fraudulent bills in respect of certain work and misappropriated the amount of Rs.1,39,55,036/-.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for the Intervenor-first informant.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Society used to verify the work done by the concerned vendors and then only used to issue cheque in the name of the concerned vendors. It is submitted that with some ulterior motive, false allegations are made against the present Applicant. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for the Intervenor submit that false bills were procured by the Applicant from the various vendors, though they did not carry out any work. It is submitted that there are statements of vendors to that effect . It is submitted that the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

2 of 3

Mugdha

3 100-ABA 352-26.doc

I have perused the statements of witnesses, viz., Raju Tukaram Kanawade and Jatin Shashikant Vaity. It appears from the statement of the said witnesses that the present Applicant had procured false bills from them. The Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

Pending Interim Application stands disposed of.

3 of 3

Mugdha