Madhumati Shashikant Vaishnav And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2566 OF 2025 Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date:

2025.12.01 20:58:07 +0530

1. Madhumati Shashikant Vaishnav

2. Shashikant Ishwardas Vaishnav ...Applicants ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Mangesh M. Deshmukh, for the Applicants.

Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED:

01 DECEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

2.

By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.49 of 2025 registered on 18th June 2025 with the Nashik City Cyber Police Station, Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 368(5) and 610 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the Applicants, along with the main Accused i.e. son of the Applicants were conducting a travelling agency known as "Milestone Holidays Pvt. Ltd.". As per the prosecution case, the First Informant paid a total amount of Rs.10,82,500/- for the purchase of flight tickets from Mumbai to Dubai and from Abu Dhabi to Mumbai. However, fake and fabricated tickets were shown to have been purchased. 4.

It is the submission of Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Applicants, that the main Accused is Accused No.1 who is the son of the Applicants i.e. Accused Nos.2 and 3. He submits that the Applicant No.2 - Shashikant Ishwardas Vaishnav, is a retired professor and father of the Accused No.1. The Applicant No.1 is the mother of the Accused No.1. She is a woman, aged 55 years, a housewife, and has been made a Director of the said Company at the instance of her son. He submits that the entire amount of Rs.10,82,500/- has been paid to the First Informant on 29th November 2025.

5.

On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, for the Respondent-State, strongly opposes granting Anticipatory Bail Application and submits that the offence is very serious. 6.

Perusal of the record shows that the main allegations are against Accused No.1, who is the son of the present Applicants. The main Accused No.1 is arrested and still incarcerated. Applicant No.1 is a 55 years old woman and Applicant No.2 is a senior citizen, aged 61 years. The Applicants have already paid the amount involved in the crime i.e. Rs.10,82,500/-, to the First Informant. Perusal of the record shows that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

7.

Accordingly, case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. In view thereof, the following Order is passed:

O R D E R

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant No.1 - Madhumati Shashikant Vaishnav and Applicant No.2 - Shashikant Ishwardas Vaishnav, in connection with CR No.49 of 2025 registered with the Nashik City Cyber Police Station, Nashik, they be released on bail on

their furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties each in the like amount.

(b) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the Charge-sheet and shall cooperate with the investigation.

(c) The Applicants shall furnish their cell phone numbers and residential addresses to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

(d) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

(e) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

(f) The Applicants shall not leave India without prior

permission of the Court.

8.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]