Sandeep Shahji Gaikwad v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1029 OF 2025 Mr. Sandeep Shahji Gaikwad ...

Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharahstra.

...

Respondent None for the applicant.

Mr. Mayur Sonavane, A.P.P. for the Respondent- State. Mr. Eknath Patil, PSI, Pune Rural, present.

CORAM :

SANDESH D. PATIL, J.

DATE : 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2025.

P.C. :- 1.

When the matter was called out, none appears for the applicant. The matter was kept back. At the second call also none appears. On perusal of record it is noticed that on 24th April 2025 also none had appeared for the applicant.

1/3

2.

With the assistance of Mr. Sonavane the learned A.P.P., I have gone through the contents of the application and the FIR. I have also perused the documents annexed with the Anticipatory Bail Application. The case of the informant is that, the applicant had promised handsome return in exchange of the informant depositing with the applicant Rs. 30 lakhs. Accordingly, the first informant deposited Rs. 30 lakhs. The applicant in order to give security to the first informant had issued cheque of rupees 10 lakh. It was dishonoured. The learned A.P.P. informs that there are three antecedents of the applicant namely - [1] C.R. No. 254 of 2015 - Dattawadi Police Station, under Section 420, 438, 464, 466 of the Indian Penal Code,; [2] C.R. No. 29 of 2017 - Baramati Taluka Police Station, under Section 420, 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and [3] C.R. No. 31 of 2009 - Baramati Taluka Police Station, under Section 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The learned A.P.P. submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender. The learned A.P.P. states that investigation is 2/3

not completed and custodial interrogation is required. 4.

On instructions learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant is in a habit of changing residence as well as phone numbers. He further submits that the applicant is not traceable. 5.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed for want of prosecution. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) 3/3