Case Name: Sidhesh Dhanesh Sha (Appellant) vs. State of Maharashtra (Respondent)
Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.19586 of 2025)
Date of Order: 18 May 2026 (New Delhi)
Underlying Orders: High Court order dated 3 January 2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 6137 of 2024; Trial Court order dated 4 May 2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Phaltan.
Relevant Timeline: FIR registered on 31 January 2019; chargesheet filed on 23 December 2022; appellant purchased Wagon‑R vehicle on 2 June 2022; vehicle seized around December 2022; application for release under Section 451 CrPC dismissed on 4 May 2024.
Parties Involved
Appellant: Sidhesh Dhanesh Sha (son of Dhanesh Nawalchand Shaha)
Respondent: State of Maharashtra (investigating authorities)
Father/Accused No. 4: Dhanesh Nawalchand Shaha – Director of the financial establishment
Loan Provider: ICICI Bank (loan of Rs 6.40 lakhs for vehicle purchase)
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta (Supreme Court); Single Judge of the Bombay High Court (unnamed); Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Phaltan (unnamed).
Issues / Allegations / Violations
FIR alleged that the accused induced the complainant to invest Rs 56,70,225 in the above financial establishment and failed to return the principal or assured returns, violating IPC Sections 406, 409, 420, 34.
The investigating agency attached the appellant’s Wagon‑R car (Reg. No. MH‑11‑DA‑7627) under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
The appellant filed an application under Section 451 CrPC seeking interim release of the vehicle; the Trial Court dismissed it, and the High Court upheld the attachment, dismissing the writ petition.
Findings & Observations
The Supreme Court observed a factual error in the lower courts: the appellant was not named as an accused in the chargesheet and did not hold any director or managerial position in the financial establishment.
Section 4(1) of the MPID Act allows attachment only of money or property acquired from the deposits or, if insufficient, of assets belonging to the promoter, director, partner, manager, or member of the establishment.
The provision does not extend to assets of family members or relatives who have no nexus to the depositors’ funds.
The vehicle was purchased with a personal loan of Rs 6.40 lakhs from ICICI Bank and is registered in the appellant’s name, showing no link to the depositors’ money.
Consequently, the attachment of the vehicle was not legally sustainable under the MPID Act.
Penalties / Settlements / Directions
No monetary penalty or punitive damages were imposed on the appellant.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 3 January 2025.
The Court directed that the Wagon‑R vehicle (MH‑11‑DA‑7627) be released forthwith upon the appellant furnishing a certified copy of this judgment before the Trial Court.
Corrective Actions & Future Obligations
The Trial Court may impose terms and conditions it deems fit for the vehicle’s release.
The appellant must present a certified copy of the Supreme Court order to the Trial Court to effect the release.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
The appeal is allowed; the High Court order is set aside.
The attachment of the vehicle under Section 4(1) of the MPID Act is declared unwarranted and cannot be sustained.
The vehicle is to be released immediately, subject to any conditions the Trial Court may impose.
All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
