Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 31 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicants: Minakshi Nilesh Singh (Applicant No.1) and Nilesh Shivji Singh (Applicant No.2).
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra and others.
  • Criminal Reference No.292 of 2025 registered at Wanwadi Police Station, Pune.
  • Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail.
  • Alleged offences: Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
  • Prosecution narrative (as per Additional Sessions Judge order dated 12 August 2025):
  • In 2016, complainant invested Rs 1.40 crore.
  • Between 03‑02‑2017 and 14‑12‑2017, complainant received Rs 25.50 lakhs from Applicant No.2.
  • In 2017, complainant was asked to pay Rs 60 lakhs on assurance of a Rs 70 lakh return; he paid Rs 54 lakhs, receiving Rs 18.50 lakhs back.
  • Complainant later demanded Rs 2.5 crore; Applicant No.2 issued two cheques of Rs 1.25 crore each.
  • A compromise meeting resulted in the promise of six flats; later, on 12‑02‑2020, the promise was increased to seven flats.
  • Applicants are directors of M/s. Shivtara Properties Pvt. Ltd., a construction and property development firm; Applicant No.1 is a non‑executive director and housewife, Applicant No.2 handles day‑to‑day operations.
  • Defence submissions claim the transactions were commercial loans, the FIR is frivolous, and the matter is civil; documents such as MOU and power of attorney are described as “comfort documents”.
  • Both parties have reached an amicable settlement: Applicants will hand over possession of Flat Nos.101 and 103 (C Wing) and Flat No.402 (A Wing) and Flat No.402 (B Wing) in the Tara Shristi Project, Keshav Nagar, Mundhwa, Pune, to the complainant. Flats 101 and 103 have already been handed over; the remaining flats will be transferred per the consent terms.
  • A photocopy of the consent terms was marked ‘X’ and entered into the record.
  • The court observed that the dispute is predominantly civil; custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

Final Outcome

  • The court granted anticipatory bail to both applicants with the following conditions:

1. Each applicant must furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one or two solvent sureties of equal amount.

2. Applicants must attend the concerned police station whenever called by the investigating officer.

3. Applicants must provide their cell‑phone numbers and residential addresses to the investigating officer and keep them updated.

4. Applicants must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the case to dissuade disclosure to the court or police.

5. Applicants must not tamper with prosecution evidence nor contact or influence the complainant or any witness.

  • The anticipatory bail application is disposed of accordingly.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Deposit Fraud