Inkit Darshrath Patel vs. The State Of Maharashtra

BA/712/2026HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM01007699202618 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The informant, Mr. Sameer Vakharia, engaged in the education software business, was introduced to Rupesh Shinde, who suggested that the applicant, Akshay Patel, owner of B.Patel & Company, could help him gain GST benefits. This would involve an investment of at least Rs. 1 Crore in cash, with an assured return of Rs. 1.18 Crores. The informant arranged the funds and, on July 29, 2025, met the applicant and another individual. The applicant accepted the cash and issued a receipt in the name of B.Patel and Company, stating the money would be given to Veer Films. When the promised return was not received, the informant lodged a complaint on August 6, 2025, leading to the applicant's arrest on August 14, 2025. The applicant was initially remanded to police custody and is now in judicial custody.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court found that a prima facie perusal of the evidence collected did not show the applicant's involvement in the crime. While statements were recorded, the investigating agency had not investigated the source of the informant's Rs. 1 Crore. Furthermore, despite the claim of a receipt being issued, no further investigation was conducted, including obtaining specimen signatures to ascertain the issuer. The Court noted that there was no evidence connecting the applicant to the crime. Additionally, the Court observed that co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail or pre-arrest bail. The applicant was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a PR Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence and attend court dates. The observations were made prima facie and confined to the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on parity with co-accused, considering that one co-accused was granted bail by the Sessions Court and another was granted pre-arrest bail by this Court, given their alleged similar roles? 2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged crime, particularly in light of the informant's statement and the lack of further investigation into the source of funds and the authenticity of the receipt? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that on parity, the applicant deserves bail as co-accused with similar roles have been granted relief. He contended that there is no evidence beyond the informant's statement and his friend's to prove the Rs. 1 Crore payment. He also highlighted that the investigation failed to trace the source of the informant's funds and that further custody is unnecessary after the charge-sheet filing. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned APP opposed the bail application, emphasizing that the informant was duped of Rs. 1 Crore. She pointed to the statement of Rupesh Shinde supporting the informant's case and mentioned the recovery of Rs. 7 Lakhs as evidence of the applicant's and co-accused's involvement. She also drew attention to the receipt issued by an accused acknowledging the amount.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

24_BA_712_2026.DOC Prasad IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2026 Inkit Darshrath Patel …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Dinesh Sadhwani a/w Neha Bhavsar, for the Applicant. Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State. Mr. Manoj Patil, Malad Police Station, present. CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 18th APRIL, 2026. PC:- 1. The Applicant seeks release on bail in connection with CR No.436 of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are as under: The informant Mr.Sameer Vakharia is doing business of education software and supply at Malad(W), Mumbai. He was introduced by his friend to accused Rupesh Shinde. He informed the informant that applicant namely Akshay Patel, owner of B.Patel & Company would help him to get benefit in GST. He also informed that said transaction would be done only in cash and for that purpose, informant will have to invest at least Rs.1 Crore in cash. He was enticed to get Rs.1.18 Crores against this investment. Page 1 of 4 18th April, 2026. 24_BA_712_2026.DOC Hence, the informant raised that amount and shown willingness to invest that amount. Accordingly, on 29.7.2025 at 11.00 a.m., he along with his partner Amish Shah and Mr.Rupesh Shinde went to the given address. Two persons were present there. They introduced the informant with the applicant. Thereafter, that amount was accepted from him and on enquiry it was told that said amount will be given to Veer Films and against that amount Rs.1.18 Crores be given to him. Applicant has issued one receipt having name of B.Patel and Company. Thereafter, as assured, the amount was not paid. Hence, on 6.8.2025, the informant lodged report and accordingly offence came to be registered. The applicant was arrested in connection with this crime on 14.8.2025. Initially he was remanded to police custody till 21.8.2025. Now, he is in judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that co- accused i.e. Accused No.1 was granted bail by the Sessions Court and Accused No.3 is granted prearrest bail by this Court. It is his submission that on parity the Applicant is entitled for bail. On merits, it is his submission that except for the alleged statement of the Informant and his friend, there is absolutely no evidence to show that any amount was paid by the Informant as claimed in the FIR. It is his submission that since it is stated in the FIR that he collected the moneys from his relatives and friends, it ought to have been investigated to that effect which is not there in the present case. According to him, the Applicant was arrested on 14th August, 2025 and after conclusion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet his further custody is not required. Page 2 of 4 18th April, 2026. 24_BA_712_2026.DOC 4. Learned APP opposed the application by pointing out that this is the case of Informant being duped of Rs.1 crore. It is her submission that there is statement of Rupesh Shinde which supports the case of the Informant. Apart from this, it is argued that there is recovery of Rs. 7 lakhs, which shows the involvement of the Applicant as well as the co-accused in the crime. She also drew attention of the Court to the receipt issued by one of the accused persons in acknowledgment of the amount from the Informant 5. Prima facie perusal of the evidence collected during the investigation does not show involvement of the present Applicant in the crime. Though there are statements recorded during the investigation, the investigating agency has not carried out investigation as to from where the amount of Rs.1 crore was brought by the Informant. Apart from this though it is claimed that receipt was issued by the accused towards token of receipt of money from the Informant, admittedly, there is no further investigation done in this regard. There is no obtainment of specimen signatures in order to ascertain as to who issued said receipt. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence to connect the Applicant in this crime. Apart from this co-accused against whom exactly similar role has been attributed, one of them is enlarged on bail and other is granted prearrest bail. Hence, following order.

ORDER i) The Bail Application is allowed. 18th April, 2026. 24_BA_712_2026.DOC ii) In connection with CR No.436 of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station, the Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with or interfere with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. iv) The Applicant shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court, unless exempted.

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.) { 18th April, 2026.

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.