Kuldip Ramesh Shahu v. State of Maharashtra - Bail Application

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 9, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Kuldip Ramesh Shahu S/O Ramesh Sahu vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps ... on 23 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4620

                                                    1                      25-Cr.BA-295-2026

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 295 OF 2026
                               Kuldip Ramesh Shahu S/o Ramesh Sahu
                                             -- VERSUS --
                                         State of Maharashtra
     __________________________________________________________________________
    Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
    appearances, Court's orders of directions       Court's or Judge's orders.
    and Registrar's Orders.

                                   Mr. Chandrakant Bailmare, Advocate for the Applicant.
                                   Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.

                                   CORAM :          M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
                                   DATE         :   MARCH 23, 2026.

                                                    Heard.

                                   2.               The present application is filed seeking
                                   regular bail in Crime No.1049/2023 for the offence
                                   punishable under [Sections 406](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/988620/), [413](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1976294/), [420](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1436241/), [467](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1985627/), [468](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/556166/), [471](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1466184/) and [120-B](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897847/) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ([IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/))
                                   and [Sections 66](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/326206/), [66(c)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/326206/) and [66(d)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/326206/) of the Information
                                   Technology Act, 2000, registered with Police Station
                                   Saoner, District Nagpur (Rural).

                                   3.               The     informant,           reported   that   on
                                   16/11/2023, while working at Anushka Restaurant,
                                   he was approached by Vivek Tejram Chaure, who
                                   offered him Rs.2,000/- for accompanying him for
                                   some work and took him to a nearby location where
                                   Kuldeep Shahu, along with another person, allegedly
                                   took possession of the informant's Aadhaar card, PAN
           2                   25-Cr.BA-295-2026

card, and mobile phone. The accused allegedly
photographed the informant's documents, and
collected OTPs. Vivek Chaure instructed the
informant that Rs.20,000/- would be credited to his
bank account, of which he could retain Rs.2,000/-
and the remaining Rs.18,000/- was to be handed
over to the accused. However, as the account was
linked to his wife, the transfer could not be
completed. Thereafter, the accused allegedly misused
the informant's personal documents and OTPs to
open a new bank account in his name, through which
funds were transferred without his consent. Based on
the said information, the F.I.R. was lodged.

1.         It appears from the record that this
   

   Court by its order dated 11/02/2026, has granted
   bail to one co-accused, namely, Surendrakumar @
   Vicky s/o Ramswaroop Gautam, in Criminal
   Application [B.A.] No.1171/2025. The said order is
   based on earlier two orders, wherein this Court as
   well as the Supreme Court has granted bail to those
   respective co-accused.

2.         The learned counsel for the applicant
   

   submits that the present applicant is also similarly
   situated and, therefore, he be granted bail on the
   ground of parity.
   3 25-Cr.BA-295-2026

3.       On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
   

   vehemently opposes the application and submits that
   the applicant is the person who has withdrawn the
   amount and has operated fake account. She further
   submits that the applicant is the resident of Uttar
   Pradesh (UP).

4.       I have considered the rival submissions.
   

   I have gone through the earlier orders passed by this
   Court as well as by the Supreme Court. This Court,
   while granting bail, in the case of Vivek Tejram
   Chawre -VS- State of Maharashtra, (Criminal
   Application [B.A.] No.414/2024, dated 12/07/2024,
   has considered the application and granted bail,
   observing that "admittedly the involvement of the
   present applicant appears to be in the economic
   offence. But now considering the investigation has
   already complete and the charge-sheet is already
   filed, further incarceration of the present applicant is
   not required, therefore, the bail application deserves
   to be allowed by imposing certain conditions."

        Further, the Supreme Court in the case
   

   of Siddhant VS State of Maharashtra, arising out of
   SLP (Cri.) No.18607/2025, has observed as under:-

   "5. The report (charge-sheet) under Section
   193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
   Sanhita, 2023 has been filed but the charges
   have not yet been framed. Prosecution
   proposes to examine 48 witnesses to drive
        4                 25-Cr.BA-295-2026
   
   home the charges against the appellant. It is
   not in dispute that all relevant documentary
   evidence and digital records, which are likely
   to be led in evidence by the prosecution,
   have been seized. Question of tampering
   with the evidence is, thus, remote.
   
   6. That apart, we are informed that co-
   accused - Vivek Chaware has been enlarged
   on bail.
   
   7. Taking an overall view of the matter, in
   the light of the allegations levelled in the
   charge-sheet, the number of witnesses to be
   examined and the stage of trial, we are of the
   considered opinion that the appellant need
   not be detained in custody any longer; also,
   since the trial is likely to take some time to
   conclude, he could be admitted to an order
   for release on bail pending trial."
   

5.       Taking into consideration both the
   

   orders and the fact that this Court has already
   granted bail to Vivek and Surendrakumar @ Vicky
   s/o Ramswaroop Gautam, and the Hon'ble Supreme
   Court has granted bail to Siddhant, I am also inclined
   to grant bail on parity by imposing stringent
   conditions. Hence, the following order:-

                 ORDER (i)           The    Criminal    Application   is
   

   allowed;

(ii) The applicant/accused (Kuldip
Ramesh Shahu S/o Ramesh Sahu) be released
5 25-Cr.BA-295-2026

on regular bail in connection with Crime
No.1049/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) and Sections 66, 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, registered with Police
Station Saoner, District Nagpur (Rural), on his
furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty
Five Thousand Rupees) with two solvent
sureties in the like amount, i.e., one local surety
and another having permanent residence in
Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh;

(iii) The accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case, as also shall not tamper with the
evidence;

(iv) The accused shall provide his
residential address and cell number to Police
Station concerned and shall not change his place
of residence without prior intimation to the
Investigating Agency;

(v) The accused shall attend each and
every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend
the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to
comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default
would entail the State to ask for cancellation of
6 25-Cr.BA-295-2026

             bail or even trial Court can suo moto take
             cognizance of this and cancel the bail;

(vi) Pending Misc. Application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.

[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ]
Piyush Mahajan