A Special Court in Mumbai has granted bail to a jeweller accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating involving alleged misappropriation of gold and diamond jewellery worth approximately ₹1.25 crore, holding that the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the nature of the underlying transaction, and the absence of criminal antecedents weighed in favour of granting bail. 

The order was passed by Special Judge V. D. Kedar, Special Judge for Bomb Blast Cases (Under the TADA (P) Act), while deciding a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with Crime No. 532 of 2026 registered at V.P. Marg Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

According to the prosecution, the complainant had been a regular customer of the applicant’s jewellery business since 2018 and had developed a relationship of trust while getting her jewellery redesigned and new ornaments prepared. The prosecution alleged that, due to financial difficulties, the accused requested the complainant in March 2023 to lend him her gold ornaments, assuring that they would be returned within one year.

Buy Now: June 2026 Ultimate Legal & Taxation Combo

Relying on their longstanding association, the complainant allegedly entrusted around 1,500 grams of gold and diamond jewellery valued at approximately ₹1.25 crore to the accused in the presence of a witness. The prosecution claimed that after expiry of the agreed period, the jewellery was neither returned nor its value repaid. 

It was further alleged that an agreement dated 6 April 2024 was executed under which the accused again undertook to return the jewellery within one year. However, according to the complainant, despite repeated demands, the accused allegedly continued to evade her, stopped responding to calls, vacated his business premises and could not be located at his last known address, leading to registration of the FIR. 

Dr. Sujay Kantawala, on behalf of the accused, denied the allegations and asserted that the applicant had been conducting a jewellery business for nearly fifteen years. Numerous financial dealings had taken place between the parties over the years because of their cordial relationship.

The applicant specifically denied that any jewellery had been entrusted to him in March 2023 and also disputed the execution of the alleged agreement dated 6 April 2024. The defence further contended that the FIR had been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version. It also argued that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not prima facie established. 

The applicant also pointed out that he had been arrested on 19 June 2026, substantial investigation had already been completed, no further custodial interrogation was necessary, and he had no criminal antecedents. 

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the allegations involved serious financial misconduct concerning jewellery worth approximately ₹1.25 crore. It alleged that the accused had dishonestly retained and misappropriated the entrusted ornaments and had subsequently melted and disposed of the gold to various persons.

The State submitted that statements of purchasers were yet to be recorded and investigation into the sale proceeds was continuing. It also expressed apprehension that release on bail could result in tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or absconding. 

While examining the material on record, the Court observed that the complainant herself had acknowledged a longstanding business relationship with the applicant and that several financial transactions had taken place between them over the years.

The Court noted that, according to the complainant’s own version, the alleged entrustment occurred in March 2023, followed by an agreement in April 2024, and that she was aware of the applicant’s alleged failure to fulfil his commitment by 2025. Despite this, the FIR came to be registered only on 14 April 2026, almost three years after the original transaction and nearly two years after the alleged agreement.

The Court found that no satisfactory explanation had been offered for this substantial delay, which became a significant factor while considering the request for bail. 

The applicant relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Special Court noted that the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil had reiterated the settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” It also took note of the argument based on Delhi Race Club that cheating and criminal breach of trust are distinct offences requiring satisfaction of different legal ingredients before both can be said to be attracted. 

Taking an overall view of the matter, the Court held that the nature of the transaction between the parties, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the stage of investigation, and the absence of criminal antecedents justified the grant of bail.

The Court observed that substantial investigation had already been completed and that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for release on bail. 

Allowing the bail application, the Court directed the applicant’s release upon execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one or two solvent sureties of the like amount.

The Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must report to the concerned police station on the fourth Saturday of every month between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge-sheet. He must cooperate with the investigation whenever required. He shall not directly or indirectly influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. He must furnish his residential address and mobile number to the investigating officer.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT