Vishnusing S/O Udhavsing Chandel v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.563 OF 2025 Vishunsing S/o Udhavsing Chandel ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr. Yogesh G. Birajdar h/f Namdev S. Shinde, for the Applicant. Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. Dhamangaonkar, EOW, Pimpri Chinchwad, present.
CORAM:
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED :
14th NOVEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.
Heard Mr. Yogesh Birajdar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the RespondentState. 2.
The Applicant by the present application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC") is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.701 of 2024 registered on 31st May 2024 with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 120-
B, 34, 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
3.
As per the prosecution case, there are total 14 Accused. These accused persons by preparing false and fabricated documents and by showing several persons who are Labourers and uneducated, as Software Engineers/IT Employees/Managers,etc. huge loans from various Banks to the extent of Rs.3,24,00,000/- as per the information collected during the investigation till date has been availed in the name of such persons. It is the prosecution case that, Accused No.1- Vasudatta Bharat Dube is the main Accused and all Accused are involved in a scam cheating different banks by way of availing loans in favour of different persons who were posed as Software Engineers and IT Employees. It is further prosecution case that, the main Accused No.
1- Vasudatta Bharat Dube has received active assistance from Real Estate Developers, Chartered Accountants and Lawyers. The Applicant is a Lawyer. As far as the allegations against the present Applicant is that he has prepared false and fabricated experience certificate in favour of Vinod Anna Shinde, Deepak Sakharam Jangam, Vijay Sahebrao Shinde and Shivram Shinde and also prepared their false resume.
4.
Ms. Yadav, learned APP has submitted following chart by giving particulars of false and fabricated experience letter and fake loan cases wherein false and fabricated documents were prepared and Fake Appointment letters were prepared by the present Applicant:- Fake Loan Cases Sr.
No.
Name & Address of Loan Native Place & Fake Position & Loan Details Holder Profession Company Vinod Anna Shinde, Flat 305, Blueberry Homes, Wagholi, Pune Pimpri Raja, Sambhajinagar, Software Engineer, Texas Company, Thane Axis Bank - Car Laon Rs.16,97,500/;
ICICI Bank - Personal Loan Rs.10,00,000/- labourer Deepak Sakharam Jangam, Flat 101, Blueberry Homes, Wagholi, Pune Chavan Mala Slum, Sadguru Nagar, Nashik Road, labourer Software Engineer, Texas Company Thane ICICI Bank - 3 Home Loans totaling Rs.81,00,000/- for 3 flats at Blueberry Wagholi Fake Appointment Letters Vijay Sahebrao Shinde Pimpri Raja Sambhaji Nagar Assistant General Manager SVARA Super Speciality Hospital, D.No.-235/1-1b, BRTS Road, Rajavari Veedhi Satyanarayanpuram, Vijaywada, Andra Pradesh Beggar Shivram Shinde Wadarwadi, Partur, District Jalna IT, Manager SVARA Super Speciality Hospital, D.No.235/1-1b, BRTS Road, Rajavari Veedhi Satyanarayanpuram, Vijaywada, Andra Pradesh.
It is the prosecution case that, the present Applicant has prepared experience letter of these 4 persons by showing them working as Software Engineers/IT Employees/Mangers etc.
5.
Draft of experience letters to be issued in favour of Vinod Anna Shinde which has been sent by WhatsApp by the present Applicant to the Accused No.1- Vasudatta Bharat Dube i.e. main Accused is to be found on Page Nos. 1842 to 1844 and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference :
Thus the Applicant has prepared false and fabricated experience letter concerning Vinod Anna Shinde, who is just a labourer as "Junior Software Developer" working in companies namely "Duelater IT Solutions" and "Exclusife Technososft Pvt. Ltd.". 6.
It is further shocking to note that the Applicant has also prepared "Resume" of said Vinod Shinde, who is just a labourer as having qualification as B. Tech (Computer Science). The said "Resume" is on page 1845 and the same is reproduced herein below :
7.
The Applicant has also prepared "Resume" of one Deepak Sakharam Jangam who is also a labourer as having qualification as B. Tech (Information Technology) and works as a Software Developer. The said experience letter (Page 1846) is reproduced herein below:
8.
The Applicant has also prepared the appointment letter in favour of Mr. Vijay Sahebrao Shinde, who is a beggar, appointed as "Assistant General Manager" in "SVARA, Super Speciality Hospital" and also prepared fake payslip for the month of March - 2024. The said letter and payslip are on Page Nos.1847-1848 and are reproduced herein below for ready reference :
9.
Thus, prima facie, the Applicant is involved in a very serious crime. By preparing all these false and fabricated documents and by submitting the same to various Banks, huge loan is obtained from various Banks which is public money.
10.
It is further significant to note paragraph 10 of the Affidavit dated 6th October 2025 of Sandip R. Ingale, Police Sub-Inspector presently attached to Economic Offences Branch, PimpriChinchwad, Pune, which reads as under: " I say that the present applicant/accused is the beneficiary in the aforesaid crime since he received monetary benefit from the prime accused Vasudatta Duby and this fact is revealed from the bank accounts of Deepak Jangam and Vinod Shinde which were being operated by main accused Dube. I further say that through these bank accounts, a total sum of Rs.2,53,000/- was received by Present applicant/accused. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-E is the copy of the bank accounts statement of Deepak Jangam and Vinod Shinde."
Thus, it is clear that the Applicant has received various amounts from the Bank Account of said Vinod Shinde and Deepak Jangam, which accounts as per the prosecution case are being operated by
the main accused- Vasudatta Dube. The Applicant is a beneficiary of the said crime.
11.
Thus, it is clear that the Applicant is involved in a very serious crime which is a scam of cheating different banks by submitting false and fabricated documents for the purpose of availing huge loans in favour of different persons who were posed as Software Engineers/IT Employees/Managers etc. by preparing bogus salary certificates and experience letter. 12.
The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagannath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra1 has held that 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. The Supreme Court has further observed that the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases will lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. The said 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489
observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case.
13.
The Supreme Court in the case of State Rep. By the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma2 has held as follows :
"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitationoriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.
The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
(Emphasis added) Thus, the Supreme Court has held that, custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect (1997) 7 SCC 187
who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. It has been held that in serious cases effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. It has been further held that very often interrogation of a person who has been protected by prearrest bail order would reduce the interrogation to a mere ritual. The factual aspect on record clearly shows that for effective interrogation the custodial interrogation is necessary. 14.
This is a case where the Applicant with other co-accused is involved in a scam where public money is defrauded. The investigation is in progress. In the Affidavit-in-Reply of Sandip R. Ingale, Police Sub Inspector, presently attached to Economic Offences Branch, Pimpri Chinchwad dated 06th October 2025 wherein the amount involved in the scam is mentioned as Rs.2,34,76,243/-. Ms. Yadav, learned APP, on instructions state that, during further investigation the amount involved in the crime has increased to Rs.3,24,26,191/- and further investigation is in progress. At this stage granting pre-arrest bail in such a serious crime will hamper the investigation.
15.
Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. 16.
At this stage the request is made by Mr. Birajdar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, to continue the ad-interim protection. However, in view of the nature of the scam and in view of the active involvement of the Applicant who is an Advocate, no case is made out for continuing the ad-interim protection. The said request is rejected.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]