Shrikant Dnyanoba Gitte v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:27855 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 918 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1173 OF 2025 Shrikant Dnyanoba Gitte

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke APP for Respondent: Mr. R.S. Wani Advocate to assist the A.P.P. : Mr. D.M. Shinde .....

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 4th OCTOBER, 2025.

PER COURT :- 1.

This is an application for granting regular bail under section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in connection with crime No. 03 of 2024 registered with Shivaji Nagar police station, Nanded, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the I.P.C. and under section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

2.

Learned advocate for the applicant pointed out the report in which it is averred by the informant that he and his family members are duped by the applicant. The applicant convinced the informant and his family members to invest the amount in the investment company and therefore, the informant and his family invested total

-2amount of Rs.1,88,44,409/-. The applicant gave false promise of handsome return of the amount but the amount is not returned by the applicant. Therefore, the report is lodged.

3.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there was no intention to cheat the informant and his family members, as it was investment for getting handsome return. The applicant is arrested and is in jail since January, 2024 and therefore, he could not make the arrangement for return of the amount. Entire investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed. Learned advocate submitted that the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- in the Special Court (M.P.I.D.) at Nanded. The applicant will not flee away from the trial. The trial will take a long period. Learned advocate therefore, prayed that the application be allowed.

4.

Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State, assisted by Mr. Shinde, learned advocate, has strongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious crime. The report itself establishes that the essential ingredients of the provisions of the M.P.I.D. Act are attracted against the applicant. The earlier two applications preferred by the applicant for bail were rejected on 10.10.2024 and 08.04.2025, and there is no change in circumstances to allow the present application. It is, therefore, lastly prayed that the

-3application be rejected.

5.

Perused the charge sheet, particularly, the F.I.R. and other documents. The applicant is involved in serious crime and duped the informant and his family members for Crores of Rupees. When an earlier application was withdrawn and another was rejected by this Court, now there is no new ground to consider the present applicant's prayer for bail, as there is no change in circumstances. Considering all these aspects, the application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the following order.

O R D E R

Application is rejected.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/