Mumbai Crime: Dindoshi Sessions Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Of Pune Man Accused Of Stealing Company Documents

Mumbai, May 12: The Sessions Court at Dindoshi has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 38-year-old Pune resident booked on the complaint of his employer for theft of company information.

Visit somethingsdifferent.biz for more information.

It is claimed that the man had used the information accessible to him and filed a petition against the company making corruption allegations before the High Court.

Pune resident booked on employer’s complaint

Pune-based Shrikant Patil was booked by Malad Police Station on October 17, 2025, on the complaint of his previous employer – Chief Managing Director of Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Ltd.

The complainant claimed that during the period from 2018 to 2020, the company of the informant carried out structural repair work at Washi Railway Station. Patil, however, filed a petition against the company alleging corruption in the work.

It is alleged that Patil was first employed as a driver in the company, but later, on his application, he was appointed as a sales executive and worked there till 2018.

Company alleges theft of confidential documents

The complainant claimed that when they were served with a copy of the petition on May 4, 2025, it was found that the documents attached to the petition could not have been accessed without the permission of the complainant. Hence, the complainant lodged the case against Patil for theft of the documents.

Patil’s lawyer, Vandana Singh, contended that the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant worked in the company only up to October 2018, after which he left the employment and had no access to the company’s records. It was further contended that the allegations regarding theft of documents are based only on suspicion without any details.

Court notes lack of cooperation in probe

The prosecution, however, contended that he has not cooperated with the investigation and has failed to appear before the investigating officer. The prosecution also claimed that there are two other cases registered against him.

The court noted that the applicant was duty-bound to attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation. However, that had not been done. Besides, the court noted that in his plea it is claimed that he has no criminal antecedents, but he has two previous cases registered.

Also Watch:

Thane Sessions Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Businessman In Alleged Sexual Exploitation Case

Court rejects anticipatory bail plea

Considering this, the court said, “The nature of offence is such that the interrogation of the applicant is necessary. The applicant is not cooperating with the investigation. In such circumstances, if at this stage the application is considered, there is every possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence and absconding by the applicant.”

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Read full story at source