Hasmukhbhai Mansukhbhai Kawad vs State Of Maharashtra

2026:BHC-AS:7390 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.109 OF 2026 Hasmukhbhai Mansukhbhai Kawad ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Mr. Maulik Soni a/w Gauri Bhagwan Gavande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for the State. PSI, M. K. Maner, MIDC Bhosari Police Station, present.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 12th February 2026 P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant

and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP for the State.

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), the Applicant is seeking

pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.49 of 2025 registered

with Bhosari MIDC Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, for the

offences punishable under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

Page 1 of 8 Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 ::: 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

3. The present Applicant is Accused No.9. In fact, Accused

No.10 described as Mahakali is also Accused No.9.

4. As per the prosecution case, the First Informant was in need

of financial assistance of Rs.100 crores and for that purpose

Accused No.5- Amar Shingade and Accused No.4- Vikas Sonawane

took First Informant in the office of Accused No.6 - Patel and

Accused No.7 - Swami and all of them informed him that for

availing a loan of Rs.100 crores, Rs.28 crores are required to be

paid as commission and that 2% amount is required to be paid as

processing fee. Accordingly, the First Informant received a message

on his mobile from cell phone number 8817762168 informing the

First Informant that Rs.100 crores have been credited in his

account. However, when the First Informant verified the same he

found that no amount has been deposited in his account. At that

time Accused No.4 - Vikas Sonawane, Accused No.5 - Amar

Shingade and Accused No.6 - Patel informed First Informant that

unless 2% of processing fee is deposited, the First Informant could

not withdraw the said loan amount and the said amount although

deposited in his account the same would be reflected in his

account only after deposit of initial amount. All of them informed

Page 2 of 8 Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 ::: 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

the First Informant that for that purpose Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees

One crore Twenty lakhs only) be deposited in the Bank Account of

Hasmukhbhai Mansukhbhai Kawad i.e. the present Applicant and

in the Bank Account of one Mahakali. The particular of said Bank

Account are mentioned in the FIR.

5. Mr. Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant fairly

admits that both of these accounts are belonging to the Applicant

i.e. Hasmukhbhai Mansukhbhai Kawad and said person named as

Mahakali is also the Applicant.

6. Admittedly, the said amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees

One crore Twenty lakhs only) has been deposited in these two

Bank Accounts by depositing Rs.60 lakhs in each of the Bank

Account. Thereafter, as the said loan of Rs.100 crore was not

deposited in the account of the First Informant he followed with

the Co-accused. Thereafter all the Co-accused who had assured

that Rs.100 crores would be deposited in the account of the First

Informant, after deposit of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore

Twenty lakhs only) gave false replies and thereafter could not be

traced. They could not be contacted on their cell phones. As the

Page 3 of 8 Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 ::: 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

First Informant realized that he has been cheated, the FIR has been

lodged.

7. Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP submitted that the offence is

very serious and the custodial interrogation is necessary.

8. It is the contention of Mr. Soni, learned Counsel appearing

for the Applicant that the Applicant is in the business of exchange

of money and therefore, the said amount of Rs.60 lakhs each has

been deposited in those accounts which are belonging to the

Applicant and the said amounts were immediately transferred in

the account of various persons as set out on Page Nos.6 & 7 of the

Anticipatory Application. Mr. Soni, learned Counsel therefore,

submits that the Applicant is not involved in the crime.

9. The details of deposit of said amount of Rs.60 lakhs each in

the account of various persons as set out by the Applicant on Page

No.6 and 7 of the Anticipatory Bail Application, read as under :-

Page 4 of 8

Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 ::: 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

ICICI Bank Account Details (Personal Account)

Sr. Name Details Amount Date No. 1 Bhoomi D/o Mahesh Vaghani 2,00,000/- 06.07.2023 2 Yash S/o Mahesh Vaghani 1,00,000/- 06.07.2023 3 Chetan Vajubhai 1,00,000/- 07.07.2023 4 Harikrushn Savani 38,00,000/- 10.07.2023 5 Mitul Chotala 1,00,000/- 10.07.2023 6 Mitul Chotala 1,00,000/- 10.07.2023 7 Mitul Chotala and Mahesh 16,00,000/- 10.07.2023 received cash from the applicant office Total 60,00,000/-

Mahakali Mobile Axix Bank account Details (Current Account)

Sr. Name Details Amount Date No. 1 Mitul Chotala (Self Check 3,50,000/- 06.07.2023 Withdrawal) 2 Shree Dying 47,50,000/- 07.07.2023 3 Mahesh Vaghani Cash (Self 9,00,000/- 07.07.2023 Check Withdrawal) Total 60,00,000/-

10. Although, it is the submission of Mr. Soni, learned Counsel

appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant is doing the business

Page 5 of 8 Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 ::: 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

of money exchange and he is not involved in the crime, however,

perusal of the Anticipatory Bail Application shows that entire

amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore Twenty lakhs only)

has been deposited in various accounts as per the above details.

There is nothing to indicate that any amount has been received

towards the said business, even, the Applicant has not deducted

any amount towards the said business or commission amount from

said amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore Twenty lakhs

only). Thus, prima facie the contention raised on behalf of the

Applicant cannot be accepted. Prima facie it appears that the

Applicant alongwith the Co-accused have committed the crime.

Prima facie all the Accused are involved in this crime which is per-

planned. The offence is very serious, requiring custodial

interrogation.

11. One more contentions which has been raised by learned

Counsel spearing for the Applicant that the chargesheet has

already been filed. However, Supreme Court in the case of X vs. the

State of Utter Pradesh1 has held that mere filing of chargehsheet

does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an application of bail.

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 43

Page 6 of 8 Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 ::: 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

It is further held that while assessing such an application, the

Court is duty bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity

of the offence and the material collected during investigation.

12. This is a case where the First Informant has been cheated for

an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore Twenty lakhs

only) which has been entirely deposited in the account of the

Applicant and thereafter Applicant has deposited the same in the

account of various persons i.e. Co-accused.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty

alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2, has held

that the Anticipatory Bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not

to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons

for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person

accused of grave offences. It has been further held that while

called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to

be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to

the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and

may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489

Page 7 of 8 Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 ::: 33-ABA-109-2026.DOC

sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. The

said observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to

the present case.

14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances no case is made out for

grant of Anticipatory Bail. The Anticipatory Bail Application is

dismissed.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

Page 8 of 8 Akash

::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:27:48 :::