Vipul Yashvantri Modi vs. The State Of Maharashtra

ABA/101/2023HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM01001979202324 June 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR14 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The applicant, Vipul Yashvant Modi, is involved in a criminal case (CR No. II-128/2022) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case involves obtaining a loan of Rs. 90,00,000/- from the State Bank of India through fraudulent means, using bogus documents and impersonation. The total amount involved in the crime is approximately Rs. 10,04,87,000/-. The applicant obtained interim pre-arrest bail on February 8, 2023, by giving an undertaking to repay the loan amount. Subsequent court orders show repeated assurances from the applicant to deposit the balance amount, which were not fulfilled. The prosecution alleges that the applicant colluded with other accused to prepare a bogus instrument and obtained the home loan, which was disbursed into a fictitious account and subsequently transferred to the applicant's account. The applicant's anticipatory bail application is before the Bombay High Court.

Held

The Court dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Application. The Court noted that the applicant had obtained interim protection by submitting an undertaking on February 7, 2023, which he never intended to comply with. The various orders passed in the application demonstrated a drastic change in the applicant's attitude after obtaining interim protection. The Court found that the applicant was involved in a very serious crime concerning public money, and the factual position on record indicated that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Kundan Singh v. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, deprecating the practice of offering monetary deposits to secure liberty in bail applications, which forecloses merit-based consideration and can lead to parties playing 'ducks and drakes' with the Court. The applicant's repeated failure to comply with undertakings given to the Court, including the assurance to repay the balance amount within two weeks on July 29, 2024, was a significant factor in the dismissal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the serious nature of the alleged offences involving public money and the applicant's alleged fraudulent conduct. 2. Whether the applicant's repeated failure to comply with undertakings given to the Court to repay the loan amount vitiates his claim for anticipatory bail. Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant's counsel sought more time for payment, indicating a continued need for more time to make the payment as undertaken. Earlier, the applicant had submitted property papers for a loan and assured repayment upon receiving it. The applicant had also expressed readiness to mortgage his property with the bank. Contentions of the Revenue (State of Maharashtra & State Bank of India): The State argued that the applicant obtained interim protection by misleading the Court and playing fraud, violating the undertaking given. The prosecution highlighted the serious nature of the crime involving public money and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The intervenor (Bank) objected to adjournments, noting the applicant's consistent delay in depositing the amount since July 2024.

Sections Cited

Section 438

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

11-ABA-101-2023.doc Arjun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2023 Vipul Yashvantri Modi …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. S. K. Pathak a/w Ganesh Singh, for the Applicant. Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Ashish Mehta a/w Seema Gupta i/b Ethos Legal Alliance, for Respondent No.2. P.S.I. Sunil D. Bhapkar, Market Yard Police Station, present. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 24 JUNE 2025 P.C.: 1. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the Order dated 23rd June 2025 made in the matter between Kundan Singh v. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise 1 are squarely applicable to the present case. “2. This case presents a scenario which is becoming common place before us in this Court. When parties move applications for anticipatory bail or for regular bail, voluntary offer is made by their counsel that the parties would deposit substantial amounts to show the bona fide and secure their liberty. The Courts’ hearing the bail applications are thereby foreclosed from considering the merits of the matter and orders are made recording the undertaking of counsel about willingness to deposit amounts and orders for anticipatory bails/bails are granted. 1 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9111/2025 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.06.27 00:10:46 +0530 11-ABA-101-2023.doc 3. Thereafter, grievance is made before the higher Courts that the condition imposed for bail is onerous and illegal.” “10. We strongly deprecate this practice. If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made, at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits and may have granted or may not have granted relief to the petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating and reprobating. We are conscious of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but we have to be equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process and cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the Court. …” (Emphasis added) 2. In the present case the Applicant is involved in very serious crime registered vide CR No. II-128/2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The public money is involved in the crime. By playing fraud huge loan of Rs.90,00,000/- was obtained by the Applicant from Respondent No.2 – State Bank of India and on the pretext that the same was required to be paid to the alleged owner of the immovable property the same was again transferred to the account of the Applicant. The total amount invovled in crime is about Rs.10,04,87,000/- and the said amount was obtained by playing fraud on various Bank and many accused are invovled in the crime. The Applicant by misleading this Court obtained interim protection of pre- arrest bail on 8th February 2023 by giving false undertaking. The factual position on record in this Anticipatory Bail Application clearly shows that the Applicant has obtained interim protection by misleading this Court and by playing fraud on this Court. Perusal of the record 2 11-ABA-101-2023.doc shows that the undertaking given to the Court has been violated. Perusal of record also shows that there is drastic change in the attitude of the Applicant after passing of the order granting interim protection. 3. As per the prosecution case, the Informant who lodged FIR was at the relevant time working as Assistant Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.2, Pune. The Assistant Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.2, Pune lodged FIR alleging that on 24.2.2022 and 5.8.2022 the accused namely Niru Anil Gupta, Suman Ashok Khandagale, Kiran Devendra Chadhdha, Anjali Satyadeo Gupta, though they were not being owners of Nandanwan Building property, Kondhawa, on the basis of bogus documents i.e. Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, documents of Pune Municipal Corporation about construction permit etc. by impersonation tried to sell the said property to another person worth of Rs.3,70,00,000/-. The purchaser of the said property was Santosh Koteswara Rao through power of Attorney Vasu Reddy, R/o Panchawati Colony, Airport Road, Bhopal. Said deeds and forged documents were produced by the accused Gorakh Makasare before the informant/sub-registrar. As per the information by one advocate, the informant suspected that one of the parties to the document might be impersonating. Therefore, the informant called the police of concerned police station. At that time the alleged owner, purchaser, witness etc. ran away from the office of sub-registrar. As such the accused cheated the original owner and registrar office in order to obtain wrongful gain 3 11-ABA-101-2023.doc for themselves. Hence, informant lodged the FIR vides C. R. No. I 128/2022 u/s 420, 406 of I.P.C. r/w Sec. 3, 4 of MPID Act on 06.08.2022 against Neeru Gupta, Suman Khandagle, Kiran Chadhdha, Anjali Gupta. 4. As per the report submitted by the Respondent-State of Maharashtra during investigation role of the present Applicant revealed as follows :- i) Vipul Yeshwant Modi, the Applicant and the Accused wanted in the offence registered, had colluded with the Accused arrested in the offence registered, prepared a bogus instrument in respect of Flat No.4 of the Original Owner thereof by name Kiran Devendra Chadhdha, located on the property viz. Plot Nos. 31,32, Survey No. 8-A, City Survey No. 388, near Bhakti Dham Ganesh Temple, Kondhva Khurd, Pune, got the same registered as Instrument No. 9088/2022 with the Office of the Registrar, Haveli No.23 and got the Home Loan of sum of Rs.90,00,000/- sanctioned from the S.B.I. Bank, Erandwane, Pune and got the said sanctioned loan amount credited in the bogus bank account of the Accused lady by name Vina Dilip Gokhale, opened in the name of Kiran Devendra Chadhdha, with the Suvarnayug Bank Chinchwad, Pune. ii) On 02.03.2022, an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-had been transferred from the Bank Account viz. Account No. 019022100000880 with the Suvarnayug Co-operative Bank, Kalewadi Branch, of Archana Ranade, Accused Lady, arrested in the offence registered and who has used the name as Anjali Satyadev Gupta in the offence, to the Bank Account viz. Account No. 111110100000415 with Bassein Catholic Co- operative Bank Limited, Pune, opened in the bogus name of Vijay Construction Company with the bogus name Javed Shashikant Savkare of Harshad Satish Kokil, the original name of arrested accused (name used in the offence – Sandip Yogesh Patil) and that the very amount had been transferred to the Bank Account viz. Account No. 83931090417 with S. B. 4 11-ABA-101-2023.doc I. Bank of the Applicant Accused Vipul Yeshwant Modi involved in the offence registered in the manner viz. Rs.15,00,000/- on the date 02.03.2022 and Rs.15,00,000/- on the date 04.03.2022. The Applicant Accused is to be arrested in the offence in that regard and investigation is to be carried out in that connection. iii) It is seen that the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- that had been transferred to the Bank Account of the Applicant- Accused by name Modi, involved in the offence registered from the Bank Account of Vijay Construction Company had been transferred to the Bank Account No. 019022100000877 of the bogus lady by name Kiran Chadhdha with Suvarnayug Co-operative Bank in the manner viz. an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- and also an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by IMPS on the date 02.03.2022 and an amount Rs.5,00,000/- each on three occasions, thus total Rs.15,00,000/- on the date 04.03.2022. Thus, the total sum of Rs.30,00,000/- had been transferred to the account of the bogus lady by name Kiran Chadhdha. iv) The amount of Home Loan of Rs.90,00,000/- that the Applicant Accused Vipul Yeshwant Modi had got sanctioned from S. B. I. Bank had been ‘disbursed’ in the Bank Account viz. Account No. 019022100000877 of the bogus lady by name Kiran Chadhdha with Suvarnayug Co-operative Bank and that again, the amount from out of said amount had been transferred to and from the Bank Account of Vipul Modi himself with the I.C.I.C.I. Bank, in the following manner. The transactions that took place between the bogus lady by name Kiran Chadhdha in her Bank Account No. 019022100000877 with Suvarnayug Co-operative Bank and Vipul Modi. Sr. No. Date Amount credited in the Bank Account of Kiran Chadhdha from the Bank Account of Vipul Modi. Amount credited in the Bank Account of Vipul Modi from the Bank Account of Kiran Chadhdha. 1) 04.06.2022 S.B.I. DSBS 90,00,000/- --- 2) 06.06.2022 --- 15,80,000/- 3) 07.06.2022 --- 15,50,000/- 4) 08.06.2022 --- 09,70,000/- 5) 09.06.2022 --- 09,50,000/- 5 11-ABA-101-2023.doc 6) 22.06.2022 10,00,000/- --- 7) 22.06.2022 05,00,000/- --- 8) 22.06.2022 --- 10,00,000/- 9) 23.06.2022 10,00,000/- --- 10) 23.06.2022 --- 15,00,000/- 11) 23.06.2022 15,00,000/- --- 12) 24.06.2022 --- 15,00,000/- v) It is seen that an amount of Rs.50,50,000/- from out of the amount of Rs.90,00,000/- that had been ‘disbursed’ in the Bank Account of the Accused lady by name Kiran Chadhdha, had been obtained by the Accused by name Vipul Modi in his Bank Account with I.C.I.C.I. Bank and that the Applicant had prepared the said instruments for obtaining a loan from the Bank. vi) The Accused persons arrested and the Accused persons wanted in the offence have colluded with each other and have got sanctioned a Home Loan of sum of Rs.10,04,87,000/- against the said property, from various Banks. The investigation is yet to be carried out in that connection. (Emphasis added) 5. Thus, as per the prosecution case, the amount of Home Loan of Rs.90,00,000/- that the Applicant Accused Vipul Yeshwant Modi had got sanctioned from State Bank of India had been ‘disbursed’ in the Bank Account viz. Account No.019022100000877 of the bogus lady by name Kiran Chadhdha with Suvarnayug Co-operative Bank and that again, the amount from out of said amount had been transferred immediately to the Bank Account of Vipul Modi himself with the ICICI Bank. The material collected by the prosecution reveal that the said loan amount of Rs.90,00,000/- was credited by the Respondent No.2-State Bank of 6 11-ABA-101-2023.doc India, RACPC, Swargate, Pune in the Bank Account of Kiran Chadhdha from the loan account of Vipul Modi on 4th June 2022 and thereafter an aggregate amount of Rs.50,50,000/- from out of the said amount of Rs.90,00,000/- had been ‘disbursed’ in the Bank Account of the Accused lady by name Kiran Chadhdha, had been obtained by the Applicant/Accused Vipul Modi in his Bank Account with ICICI Bank. During investigation it was revealed that the Accused persons wanted in the offence have colluded with each other and have got sanctioned a Home Loan of sum of Rs.10,04,87,000/- against the said property, from various Banks. 6. In view of involvement of the Applicant in very serious crime and when the crime is concerned with the public money, it is required to note various orders passed by this Court in this Anticipatory Bail Application. i. On 19th January 2023 a learned Single Judge passed the

following Order :- “. At the request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, stand over to 6 February 2023. It is made clear that there is no interim protection.” (Emphasis added) It is very important to note that no interim protection was granted by a learned Single Judge on 19th January 2023. ii. On 8th February 2023 the learned Single Judge passed the following Order :- 7

11-ABA-101-2023.doc “1. The learned counsel for the applicant has tendered affidavit-cum- undertaking dated 7 February 2023. The same is taken on record and marked as “X” for the purpose of identifcation.

The learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to add the concerned bank as party respondent to the present application. Leave as sought is granted. Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

Issue notice to the added respondent, returnable on 2 March 2023. 4. In addition to regular mode of service, the applicant to serve the added respondent by alternate mode of service such as Fax/Email/Courier and shall fle afdavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date.

Till the next date, the applicant shall not be arrested.” (Emphasis added) Thus, the State Bank of India was directed to be impleaded as party. The learned Single Judge granted interim protection in view of undertaking dated 7th February 2023. The Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of said undertaking dated 7th February 2023 reads as under :- “6. I say that, prima facie to show my bonafide immediately I will make payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh only) before this Hon’ble Court on or before 28.2.2023. I hereby undertake that, I shall pay balance money sum of Rs.73,44,000/- (Rs. Seventy three Lakh Forty Fourt Thousand only) in schedule. Sr. No. Amount Period 1 Rs.90,00,000/- Housing Loan amount 2 Rs.6,56,000/- Total paid EMI amount 3 Rs.10,00,000/- On or before 28.2.2023 Rs.73,44,000/- 8

11-ABA-101-2023.doc 5 Rs.2,00,000/- Balance lying in SBI Saving account 6 Rs.7,00,000/- Approx.

refund

of Registration of said flat Rs.64,44,000/- Balance amount to be paid 1 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 31.03.2023 2 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 30.04.2023 3 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 31.05.2023 4 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 30.06.2023 5 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 31.07.2023 6 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 31.08.2023 7 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 30.09.2023 8 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 31.10.2023 9 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 30.11.2023 10 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 31.12.2023 11 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 31.1.2024 12 Rs.5,00,000/- On or before 29.2.2024 13 Rs.4,44,000/- On or before 31.03.2024 Rs.64,44,000/-

I hereby undetake that, I am binding to the abovesaid terms of payment and I shall abide the same. I shall make payment as per abovementioned terms without fail.” (Emphasis added) Thus, it is clear that in view of above undertaking the interim protection was granted by the learned Single Judge. iii. However, it is relevant to note that the attitude of the Applicant after obtaining the interim protection has been drastically changed. iv. A learned Single Judge passed the following Order on 2nd March 2023 :- 9

11-ABA-101-2023.doc “The learned counsel for the applicant has tendered application for production of document. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X-1’ for the purpose of identification.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the affidavit dated 7 February 2023, the applicant has deposited amount of Rs.10 Lakhs with the concerned Bank.

The learned APP seeks time to take instructions from the Investigating Officer. At the request of the learned APP, stand over to 21 March 2023. The applicant shall not be arrested till the next date.” (Emphasis added) v. On 6th April 2023 following Order was passed :- “. The applicant is permitted to submit settlement proposal to the Respondent No.2-Bank. List the application on 28 April 2023. Interim order to continue till next date.” vi. A learned Single Judge passed following Order on 29th July 2024 :- “1) When the Court was not inclined to allow the present application because of the fact that after availing the loan of Rs.90,00,000/-, the applicant received Rs.50,00,000/- from the co-accused, the learned Counsel for the applicant states that since it is a public money and he is ready to repay the balance amount. It is pointed out that some amount has already been paid to the Bank. He further submits that in next two weeks, he will make the payment of balance amount to the Bank. Since the statement is made about the payment of the amount voluntarily by the applicant, I am of the opinion that the applicant should get one opportunity to show his bonafide.” (Emphasis added) vii. Following Order was passed on 12th November 2024 :- 10

11-ABA-101-2023.doc “. The learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submits that in pursuance of the order dated 29 July 2024, the applicant will make the payment of the balance amount to the bank within two weeks from today.” viii. On 2nd January 2025 following Order was passed :- “2. Learned counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, submits that the Applicant has submitted the original papers of his property, situated at Hinjewadi, Pune, to the Intervenor/Bank and he sought loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from the bank. The Applicant assures that upon receiving the loan, he will pay the amount as committed to this Court and requested for time.” ix. On 4th March 2025 following Order has been passed by learned Single Judge :- “2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to deposit the amount as undertaking given to this Court. Learned counsel for intervenor strongly objected for adjournment on the ground that since July-2024 the applicant has taken date for depositing the amount as undertaking given before this Court, hence requested to pass appropriate order.

Considering the submission of both the learned counsel, last chance is given to the applicant to deposit the amount.” x. On 13th March 2025 following Order was passed :- “2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is ready to mortgage his property with the bank. Learned counsel for the intervenor submits that applicant never attended the bank.

Considering the submission of both the learned counsel, applicant is directed to go to bank on Monday i.e. 17th March, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. along with property papers which he intends to mortgage.” 11

11-ABA-101-2023.doc xi. Thereafter, Anticipatory Bail Application was adjourned at the instance of the Applicant on 24th March 2025, 28th April 2025 and 9th May 2025. 7. In the above background, this Court passed the following Order on 17th June 2025 :- “1. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant seeks one week’s time as a last chance. It is made very clear that, as a last chance the matter is being adjourned to the next date. If, statements made before this Court on earlier occasions are not complied with by the Applicant then ad-interim protection granted earlier shall not be continued.

Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant states that on the next date the Applicant will remain present in this Court.

Accordingly, stand over to 24th June, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.

Ad-interim relief to continue till next date.” (Emphasis added)

Today learned Counsel for the Applicant states that more time will be required for making payment.

The position on record shows that the undertaking dated 7th February 2023 has been filed stating that the Applicant would repay the loan amount availed from the State Bank of India as set out in Clause No.6 of the said undertaking. The said Clause No.6 records various instalments and further states that the last instalment would be paid on 31st March 2024. 10. Perusal of the record further shows that the said undertaking has 12

11-ABA-101-2023.doc not been complied with and therefore as noted herein above a learned Single Judge has passed the Order dated 29th July 2024 inter alia recording that after availing the loan of Rs.90,00,000/-, the applicant received Rs.50,00,000/- from the co-accused and the Court was not inclined to allow the Anticipatory Bail Application. The learned Single Judge further recorded statement of the applicant that since the money involved is public money, he would repay the balance amount in two weeks. Thus, it is clear that it was represented to the learned Single Judge on 29th July 2024 that the Applicant would make the balance payment within a period of 2 weeks. The said statement also has not been complied with.

11.

The position on record shows that the offence is very serious where by submitting false and fabricated documents to the State Bank of India the loan of Rs.90,00,000/- has been availed by the Applicant in the name of fictitious person. The said money is a public money.

12.

As noted herein above, the interim protection granted by the Applicant has been obtained by playing fraud on this Court by submitting undertaking dated 7th February 2023 which the Applicant was never intending to comply. The various orders passed in this Anticipatory Bail Application clearly shows that after obtaining interim protection the attitude of the Applicant has drastically changed.

13.

In any case, the factual position clearly shows that the Applicant 13

11-ABA-101-2023.doc is involved in very serious crime. The crime is concerning public money and factual position on record shows that the custodial interrogation is necessary.

14.

Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 14

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.