Aditya Govind Thombare v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3566 OF 2025 Prasad A. Chaudhary ...Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
...Respondents.
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2026 ..............
Ms Priyanka Dubey a/w. Adv. Vikrant Pandey, Adv. Saurabh U. Kmble i/b Hedgehog and Fox LLP for the Applicant. Mr. B.V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Rahul Pandey a/w. Mr. Shivam Dubey and Ms Suchita Pandey for the Intervener in IA.
API Dinesh Gurjar, Meghwadi Police Station is present. ..............
CORAM
:
N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE :
05.02.2026.
P.C. :
1.
This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 613 of 2025 registered at Meghwadi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3.
The applicant was working as a Customer Relationship Manager with Avant Heritage IV Reality Private Limited. The allegations against the present applicant are that he collected an amount of Rs.26,49,829/- towards TDS from 27 flat purchasers vide bank transfers and UPI payments to his personal bank 1/3
account from December 2024 to July 2025 and thereafter, misappropriated the same. It is further alleged that, to falsely demonstrate that the collected TDS has been deposited with the Income Tax Department, the applicant prepared forged receipts to that effect and gave the same to the respective flat purchasers, thereby cheating them as well as the said construction company. 4.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent / State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/first informant.
5.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it was not the applicant's job to collect or deposit the amount of TDS with the Income Tax Department. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation. It is further submitted that there are no other criminal antecedents against the present applicant.
6.
On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that the flat purchasers in their statement have stated that on the instructions of the applicant the amount of TDS was deposited in his bank account. They have further stated that the present applicant has handed over the forged receipts. Learned APP submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to interrogate him in respect of the forged receipts. It is 2/3
submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.
7.
I have perused the statements of the flat purchasers. There appears to be substance in the submission of the learned APP. Considering the nature of forgery, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Application is rejected. 8.
The Interim Application for intervention stands disposed of. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] 3/3