Sameer Sunil Satav v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2897 OF 2025 Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date:

2025.10.15 22:31:52 +0530 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Sameer Sunil Satav ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Samay Pawar & Indrayanee Pandit, for the Applicant. Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED:

15 OCTOBER 2025 PC:- 1.

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

2.

This Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the Applicant, who is Accused No.3 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.365 of 2025 registered with Khadak Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 112(2), 3(5), 316(2), 316(5), 318(3) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

As per the prosecution case, there are total 11 Accused, out of the same, 7 Accused have been arrested, 1 Accused has been released on bail and another Accused is released on anticipatory bail. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused persons induced the Complainant to give cash of Rs.2 crores to Accused Shubham on the promise that the said amount would be returned to him within two to three hours along with 2% commission. However, the Accused persons did not return the agreed amount to the Complainant and cheated him. As far as the allegation against the Applicant is concerned, he was present at the spot of the incident.

4.

It is the submission of Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant was merely present when the incident in question took place. He submitted that out of the said amount of Rs.2 crores, an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- has already been recovered. He submitted that even as per the prosecution case, not a single rupee has been received by the Applicant. He submits that there are no antecedents against the Applicant. Learned Counsel has raised several other contentions.

5.

On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP strongly opposes the Anticipatory Bail Application. She submits that the crime is very serious and therefore, the Anticipatory Bail Application be dismissed. Ms. Yadav, learned APP, on instructions, submits that the chargesheet has been filed on 11th September 2025. 6.

Perusal of the record shows that the only allegation against the Applicant is that he was present when the incident in question took place. Even as per the prosecution case, no money has been received by the Applicant. The chargesheet is already filed on 11th September 2025. Therefore, the investigation is completed. 7.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that there are no antecedents against the Applicant. 8.

Accordingly, the 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 - Sameer Sunil Satav in connection with CR No.365 of 2025 registered with the Khadak Police Station, Pune, he be

released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 11:00 am to 01:00 pm. In addition, the Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called.

(c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

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

(f) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior

permission of the Court.

9.

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