Nikhil S/O Sudhakar Jichkar v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Sonegaon, Tq And Dist. Nagpur
2026:BHC-NAG:2932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.33 OF 2026 Nikhil S/o Sudhakar Jichkar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, Police Station Officer, Police Station, Sonegaon, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri Mohd. Ateeque, Advocate for applicant.
Shri N.R. Rode, AGP / APP for respondent/State. CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATE : 17.02.2026.
1.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.248/2025 registered with Police Station, Sonegaon, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5), 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned APP for the non-applicant/State.
3.
Perusal of the case diary reveals that the offence came to be registered at the instance of complainant - Rekha Raut, the original owner of the house property, alleging that her house was mortgaged with Canara Bank by the coaccused by misrepresenting and playing fraud upon her. Coaccused Vilas Nakhale and Devidas Chamlate had been to her house and they misrepresented her on account of
transferring her property in the name of her son and got the mortgage deed executed with Canara Bank against the loan amount of 1.40 crore sanctioned to Shoman Design and ₹ Decor Private Limited, a partnership firm of other co-accused namely Pratik Raut and Karishma Pratik Raut. Therefore, on her complaint the aforesaid offence came to be registered. 4.
The investigation was carried out. One Karishma Pratik Raut, a partner of Shoman Design and Decor Private Limited, has stated that the applicant had approached her husband and asked him to open a joint account in the name of Shoman Design and Decor Private Limited, to obtain the loan amount of 1.40 crore since he was in need of 1.40 ₹ ₹ crore. Therefore, Pratik Raut and his wife Karishma Raut opened the account in the name of Shoman Design and Decor Private Limited and obtained the loan.
5.
It is further revealed that the present applicant informed that one lady namely, Rekha Raut (complainant) is ready to mortgage her property. It also appears that after obtaining the mortgage loan of 1.40 crore in the name of ₹ firm namely Shoman Design and Decor Private Limited, the entire amount has been transferred to various relatives of the present applicant at his instance. One of them is Chetan Enterprises owned by one Chetan Jichkar. The address of the said firm i.e. Chetan Enterprises is shown as the address where the applicant is residing. All this material goes to prima facie show the involvement of the applicant; rather,
he is the mastermind in getting the said mortgage deed executed and obtaining the loan of 1.40 crore in the name ₹ of a fake firm namely Shoman Design and Decor Private Limited. The entire money has been utilized by him by transferring it to various relatives.
6.
The investigation is at a primary stage. Detailed investigation is required and therefore, effective interrogation of the present applicant is necessary which may be possible by way of custodial interrogation. 7.
Considering the role played by the present applicant as well as the manner of diversion of funds to the extent of 1.40 crore; in my opinion, the applicant does not deserve ₹ extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected.
(M.W. Chandwani, J.) Wagh