← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/2259/2025disposed off

Sandip Krishna Kambale v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

2025-08-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar2 pages

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.08.13 19:41:20 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Chitra Sonawane 909-aba-2259-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.2259 of 2025 Sandip Krishna Kambale ... Applicant.

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. --- Ms Rashmi Kulkarni a/w Mr Ashish Kachole for the applicant.

Mr MG Patil, APP a/w Mr Shahaji Shinde, Panel B for the respondent / State.

API Deepak Kadam, EOW-I, Navi Mumbai.

--- Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.

Date : 13 August 2025.

P.C. :

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no nexus, direct or indirect, with the alleged offence in question. It is contended that, even accepting the case of the prosecution at its highest, the monetary amounts in the issue were received exclusively in the proprietary concern operating under the name and style of M/s Snehalniti Enterprises, wherein accused No.1 is the sole proprietor. The present applicant holds the position of director in Snehalniti Private Limited, a distinct and Page No. 1 of 2 ____________________________________________ 13 August 2025

Chitra Sonawane 909-aba-2259-2025.doc separate juristic entity, in which no amount, as alleged has been credited or received. The applicant has not derived, nor has been shown to have derived, any pecuniary advantage or benefit from the impuged transactions. It is further submitted that Snehalniti Enterprises (a sole proprietorship) and Snehalniti Private Limited (a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act) are two entirely independent legal entities, each possessing separate juridical personality, governance structure, and financial accounts. Any perceived connection between the two is merely attributable to the similarity in their trade names, which has resulted in unwarranted confusion. 2.

Learned APP, however, seeks an accommodation to obtain necessary instructions from the investigating officer. 3.

By consent stand over to 4 September 2025. There shall not be any coercive action against the applicant in the present case till the next date.

[R. N. Laddha, J.] Page No. 2 of 2 ____________________________________________ 13 August 2025