Bombay High Court
Aniket Subhash Palshetkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 July, 2026
14-ABA-749-2025.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 749 OF 2025
Aniket Subhash Palshetkar ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Adv. Bharat Manghani, for Applicant.
Mr. B. V. Holambe-Patil, A.P. P., for Respondent - State.
PI S. A. Chavan, Economic Offences Wing, Mira Bhayender Vasai
Virar, is present.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 14TH JULY 2026 P.C:-
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned APP
for respondent – State.
2. The applicant has filed the instant application under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest
bail in Crime No. 179 of 2018, registered with Navghar Police
Station, Thane Rural, Dist. Thane, for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 120(b) and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC“) alongwith Sections
3, 4(a) and 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation Of
The Promotion Of Construction, Sale, Management And Transfer)
Page 1 of 5
14th July 2026
14-ABA-749-2025.ODT
Act, 1963 (for short, “MOFA”) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra
Protection Of Interest Of Depositors (In Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999 (for short, “MPID Act“).
3. It is the prosecution case on the basis of a report lodged by
the complainant that, he got acquainted with Mr. Amit Palshetkar
through his common friend namely Manoj Agrawal. Then Mr.
Amit Palshetkar told the complainant that he along with his
brothers and mother who are partners of M/s. Sai Ninad
Enterprises deal in the business of Construction. In the year 2014
Mr. Amit Palshetkar along with his brothers namely Abhishek
Palshetkar and Aniket Palshetkar visited the office of the
complainant and made promise by luring 3% per month returns
against the investment in their company. Afterwards the
complainant transferred an amount of Rs. 1 Crore in the HDFC
Bank account of the said Company on 03.01.2015 and by way of
security, all accused executed a registered Irrevocable Power of
Attorney in favour of the complainant. In the year 2017, when the
complainant inquired Mr. Amit about his invested money and
interest thereon then Mr. Amit told him that, he is unable to repay
him therefore he will register the shops and flats in respect of
Page 2 of 5
14th July 2026
14-ABA-749-2025.ODT
which Irrevocable Power of Attorney (for short, “IPOA”) was
executed earlier. Complainant then got knowledge through search
report that shops and flats in respect of which IPOA was executed
were already sold to third persons. The complainant after having
realized that he stood cheated and duped to the tune of more than
Rs. 1 Crore lodged the FIR.
4. Mr. Bharat Manghani, learned counsel for applicant
submitted that after getting notice u/s 41-A on 28.11.2024 the
applicant had filed an application seeking pre-arrest bail before
the Sessions Court vide ABA No. 2177 of 2024 which came to be
rejected by order dated 05.03.2025. Thereafter the applicant has
filed instant application. Learned counsel for applicant submitted
that the applicant had never misused the interim protection which
was granted by the Sessions Court and extended his co-operation
to the Investigating Agency during the pendency of the
application. Also, the chargesheet is already filed and nothing
remains to be recovered from the present applicant and the other
co-accused. The applicants’ mother and sister-in-law are already
enlarged on the anticipatory bail. Therefore, his personal liberty
needs to be protected.
Page 3 of 5
14th July 2026
14-ABA-749-2025.ODT
5. As against this, learned APP for the respondent opposed the
application and submitted that the applicant had criminal
antecedents and the offences are of the same nature. The
applicant has not disclosed the criminal antecedents in the
application which is mandatory in view of the position of law
settled in the matter of Zeba khan Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported at 2026 SCC Online SC 188. Also, the chargesheet is filed
against Mr. Amit Palshetkar and the investigation is pending
against the present applicant as he is absconding since the
registration of offence. He also invited attention to the conduct of
the applicant who has managed to ensure that the Investigating
Officer gives no objection to his anticipatory bail. He invited
attention to the observation recorded in para 13 of the order
passed by Session Court and direction to conduct enquiry against
the Investigating Officer.
6. It has to be noted that the applicant is signatory to the
Memorandum of Understanding executed in the year 2015 and
also the Registered Irrevocable Power of Attorney by which
accused had lured for 3% interest against the investment which
itself in contravention of the provisions of the MPID Act. After
Page 4 of 5
14th July 2026
14-ABA-749-2025.ODT
registration of offence the applicant or his company had never
repaid the amount to the complainant. It is crucial to note, that
during investigation it is revealed that the applicant and his
company has duped many persons for more than Rs. 25 Crores.
7. Pertinent to note, the Sessions Court has recorded specific
observation in para 13 about conduct of the applicant. The
Sessions Court has also directed enquiry against the Investigating
Officer. This shows the mischievous conduct of the applicant who
has influenced the Investigating Agency. This conduct is sufficient
to reject the Anticipatory Bail.
8. Having regard to the allegations in the FIR and the
mischievous conduct of the applicant in influencing the
investigation agency and considering the nature of offence
being very serious in nature, at this stage, I am of the opinion
that the applicant has failed to make out any case for grant of
pre-arrest bail. Hence, the instant application seeking pre-arrest
bail is rejected.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-
Page 5 of 5
14th July 2026
