PAWAN KHEMANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                      918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

Harish

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1019 OF 2026
Pawan Khemani                                             ...Applicant
            V/S.
The State of Maharashtra And Anr.                         ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
Adv. Niteen Pradhan a/w Adv. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Chetan Alai, Pawani
Chadda, Rishab Chaurasia, for the Applicant.
Adv. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent – State.
Senior Adv. Haresh Jagtiani a/w Tejas Bhatt, Pushpvijay Kanoji i/b Saloni
Sathe, for the Respondent No.2.
PI - Mr. Nitin Pagar, EOW, Mumbai is present.
________________________________________________________
CORAM             : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
RESERVED ON       : 29TH AUGUST, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :-

1.        Heard Adv. Niteen Pradhan along with Adv. Hrishikesh Mundargi

learned counsels for the applicant and Adv. Arfan Sait learned APP for the

respondent-state as well as Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani, along with Mr.

Tejas Bhatt, for the respondent no. 2.

2.        The instant application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Suraksha Sanhita (in short BNSS) has been filed by the applicant seeking

pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 84 of 2025, registered with



                                     1/12
                                                             918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

EOW, Mumbai, (C.R. No. 699 of 2025, dated 15.09.2025 registered with

MIDC Police Station, Mumbai), for the offence punishable under Sections

406, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

3.            The FIR came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by

the informant, who was working as a Assistant Manager (Legal) in Vistra

ITCL India Ltd, Family Trust. The informant has alleged that one Mr.

Jawaharlal Rijhumal Gangaramani has established Gangaramani Family

Private Trust, and has transferred all his properties in the name of the trust

and the work of managing and looking after the property of the trust is

entrusted to the informant company. The gist of allegations in FIR is stated

thus ;

(a)      It is alleged in the complaint that the trust had owned three offices, out

of which office no. 403 was let out to the accused. Mr. Pawan Khemani and

monthly rent was fixed, which was to be paid from July, 2008. It is alleged

that the accused had given rent from July, 2008 to March, 2010 through

various cheques but thereafter failed to deposit the rent. On the basis of

certain financial constraints conveyed by the accused, the monthly rent was

reduced and thereafter the accused paid part of the arrears of rent and failed

to pay rent from August, 2011 onwards. The accused was in arrears of rent

from August, 2011 to August, 2013 amounting to Rs. 73,92,000/- and out of

this amount he paid only Rs. 25,00,000/-. Since the accused had failed to

pay the rent and vacate the office, in November, 2021, a notice was issued to


                                        2/12
                                                            918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

the accused to vacate the office and pay the rent. On failure to pay the rent, a

civil suit bearing Suit No. 133 of 2022 came to be filed by Jawaharlal

Gangaramani against the accused in the Court of Small Causes at Bandra.

(b)   It is alleged in the report that as a counter blast to this suit, the accused

filed a separate suit bearing Civil Suit No. 79 of 2024 in this Court seeking

specific performance of contract on the basis of certain agreements which

bears forged signature of Mr. Jawaharlal Gangaramani and Smt. Usha

Gangaramani. It is alleged that the suit is filed on the basis of forged

documents of 2013 in the nature of an agreement to sale and a document of

memorandum of understanding. It is alleged in the report that the accused

had failed to pay the rent towards Office No. 403 and has on the basis of

forged and fabricated documents filed the suit to grab the property worth of

Rs.12,00,000,00/-. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR is registered

against this applicant.

4.         Advocate Nitin Pradhan learned counsel for applicant advanced

several arguments, which are briefly stated below ;

(i)   The dispute is primarily civil in nature, with respect to which civil

litigations are already pending and the civil dispute is given the colour of an

offence. He submitted that the actual controversy in between the

complainant and the applicant is subject matter of a dispute, in the suit for

eviction which is filed against this applicant before the Court of Small

Causes at Bandra bearing LEC Suit No. 133 of 2022. He submitted that the


                                       3/12
                                                          918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

further controversy in between the parties is a subject matter of another civil

suit filed by the applicant which is a suit for specific performance, filed

before this Court bearing Suit No. 79 of 2024. He submitted that the

applicant’s suit is based on an agreement to sale, executed by the original

owner and the issues about legality of the said agreement to sale is subject

matter of adjudication in the said suit. He also submitted that instead of

contesting the said suit on merits, by filing its written statement, the

complainant has filed the FIR by way of counter blast to the suit.

(ii)    Learned counsel for applicant also vehemently submitted that the

lodging of report by the complainant is itself an abuse of process since the

earlier complaint lodged by the complainant based on the same set of

allegations was found to be a civil dispute, on the basis of its scrutiny by the

police department. By inviting attention to the communication dated 14 th

March, 2024 (at page 237 to 242) issued by the Police Inspector of MIDC

Police Station, Thane, he submitted that the complaint lodged by the

complainant was refused to be entertained as a criminal matter. In view of

this report of the Police Inspector, it is submitted that the subsequent report

lodged by the complainant based on the same allegations, also deserved to

be categorized as a civil dispute. He thus submitted that in any case,

considering the nature of the dispute to be primarily civil dispute, the

custody of this applicant is absolutely not warranted.

(iii)   It is submitted that even if the allegations levelled in the report are


                                     4/12
                                                        918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

considered, it appears that the nature of investigation would be based on

documentary evidence and the necessary documents are already available

with the investigating agency and therefore custodial interrogation of the

applicant is not warranted.

(iv)   The gravamen of allegations is about forgery of the documents in the

nature of agreement to sale and memorandum of understanding which are

filed in the suit before this Court. The controversy as raised in the eviction

suit so also in the suit for specific performance, is a civil matter. The

document filed by this applicant in the suit, if alleged to be forged

documents and offence of forgery if any, could be a subject matter of

proceedings under Section 379 of BNSS (Section 340 of Cr.P.C.) since the

documents are filed in the suit. He further submitted that there is nothing to

show that any offence referred in Section 195(1)(b) (ii) of Cr.P.C. has been

committed.

(v)    To highlight the legal position with respect to distinction between

Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and 195(1)(b)(ii), he placed reliance on judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bandekar Brothers Private Ltd.

And Ors. Versus Prasad Vasudev Keni And Ors. reported at (2020) 20 SSC

1.

(vi)    It is submitted that the complainant has inflated the value of the

property only to bring the controversy within the jurisdiction of EOW and

even the cognizance taken by EOW was unwarranted.


                                    5/12
                                                         918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

(vii)    By pointing out the period of occurrence of the offence as stated in

the FIR itself, from 25th June, 2008 till 26th June, 2023, it is submitted that

the registration of the FIR in September, 2025 is belated and without any

justification for delay.

(viii)   It is submitted that after the complainant had raised the grievance,

the applicant was called upon by the investigating agency to attend the office

of EOW and accordingly the applicant has attended on 65 times. Thus, it is

submitted that the applicant has already extended cooperation in the

investigation and is again ready to extend cooperation by attending the

office of EOW as and when called upon and hence the custody of the

applicant need not be insisted upon.

5.         As against this, learned SPP for the respondent-state and Mr.

Haresh Jagtiani learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 had

vehemently opposed the application. Advocate Arfan Sait, learned APP

appearing for the EOW submitted that there are specific allegations in the

FIR pointing out the entire conduct of the applicant in committing the

offence. He submitted that the office premises was taken by the applicant on

rent, however, despite the undisputed status of the applicant, he raised false

claim on the basis of forged documents of ‘MOU’ and agreement to sale. He

submitted that the applicant has falsely claimed that he has paid an amount

of Rs. 1.94 crore, even though the value of the subject property is more than

Rs. 20 crores. He submitted that in view of opinion of handwriting expert,


                                       6/12
                                                          918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

the signature on the documents are forged, and the applicant being the

beneficiary is liable to be prosecuted. He also submitted that crimes of

similar nature are pending against the applicant and his custodial

interrogation is required for the purpose of investigation.

6.         Mr. Jagtiani learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 2,

advanced several submissions, which are briefly reproduced below ;

(a)     The offences alleged in the FIR are serious in nature showing

fraudulent conduct of the applicant based on forged documents of agreement

to sale dated 14th September, 2013 and ‘understanding for sale/purchase of

office premises’ dated 6th February, 2008. He submitted that both these

documents are on plane, ledger paper, unstamped and unregistered and bear

forged signatures of Mr and Mrs Gangaramani and thus the entire basis of

applicant’s claim is illegal.

(b)      The status of the applicant was undisputedly based on leave and

license agreement against monthly compensation. By pointing out various

communications, particularly letter dated 25 th June, 2008 signed by the

applicant, specifying the leave and license agreement and other letters issued

by Baba Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. from 1 st September, 2008 to 1st

March 2011, along with the cheques and TDS certificates issued by

applicants company, he submitted that undisputedly the status of the

applicant was based on the leave and license agreement. Thus the assertion

made by the applicant based upon the agreement to sale is based on


                                     7/12
                                                        918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

fraudulent documents. He submitted that the contentions of applicant are

inherently false and unbelievable, since the applicant had even failed to pay

rent regularly on account of its own financial constraints as put forth from

time to time and still introduced a story about payment of Rs.1,00,000,00/-

in cash, which is without any basis.

(c)    By inviting attention to the applicant’s police statement dated 8 th

February, 2015 regarding the sale transaction and the averments in the

anticipatory bail application, he submitted that there are glaring variances

and contradictions in the story put forth by the applicant, which shows that

the applicant has based his case on falsehood. He submitted that the

applicant has intentionally fabricated the documents to cause wrongful gain

to himself and wrongful loss to the victims. He also invited attention to the

conduct of the applicant who has committed fraud against the victims and to

patch up his fraudulent activities has gone to the extent of making

unfounded allegations against the advocate appearing for the intervener.

(d)   The applicant has not extended cooperation to the investigating agency

and has always attempted to mislead it by not disclosing the true

transactions.

(e)    Considering the past conduct of the applicant, there is possibility of

tempering with the evidence on record and custodial interrogation of the

applicant is necessary.

7.        In the backdrop of these submissions, rival contentions fall for my


                                       8/12
                                                          918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

consideration.

8.         While considering the rival contentions, it has to be noted that this

court is considering the case for the purpose of deciding the application for

grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, the focus is on the factors to be considered

for grant of anticipatory bail and presence or absence of those factors in the

facts and circumstances of the instant case. Although learned counsel for

applicant as well as respondents have advanced submissions on merits of the

allegations and has attempted to point out the presence and absence of

ingredients of the offence, it has to be noted that at this stage, this Court is

not required to record any observations about the contents of the documents

and its authenticity as the same would depend on the evidence to be laid by

the parties.

9.         On perusal of the FIR and the documents placed on record,

following crucial aspects emerge.

(i)    The gravamen of allegations in the FIR is about forgery of the two

documents in the nature of agreement to sale and memorandum of

understanding. Pertinent to note civil litigations are pending before the Civil

Court and before this Court, wherein the authenticity and legality of these

documents would be tested on the basis of evidence to be laid by the parties.

(ii)    The crux of allegations in the FIR is the alleged forgery of the

signatures on these documents. These documents are already available with

the investigation agency and the original documents if required, can be


                                     9/12
                                                           918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

secured. The allegations about forgery of these documents or forgery of

signatures of the parties on these documents is a part of investigation. The

position of law is settled that for the purpose of securing any documents,

custodial interrogation of a person is not required.

(iii)    It is crucial to note that the same set of allegations were earlier

considered by the police officials and it has been found that the controversy

is civil in nature, as can be seen from the report dated 14 th March, 2024

issued by the police inspector, MIDC Police Station, Mumbai( page number

237 to 239 of the paper book). It has been noted that on the same set of

allegations, a subsequent report is lodged by the complainant, and on that

basis, the instant FIR is registered. Thus, in view of this report and further,

considering the fact that civil suits are pending in between the parties with

respect to the two documents, I prima facie find force with the contentions

of the applicant that the civil transaction is tried to be given a colour of an

offence. In any case, considering the nature of offence based on the

allegations as levelled in the FIR, at this stage, the custodial interrogation of

this applicant does not appear to be warranted.

(iv)    In the backdrop of the controversy as raised by the respective parties,

while considering the instant application for grant of bail in anticipation of

arrest, it is crucial to see as to whether at this stage, the custodial

interrogation of this applicant is necessary. It has to be noted that the FIR is

already registered and with regard to allegations of forgery, further


                                     10/12
                                                          918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

investigation would be conducted which is primarily related to documentary

evidence, which are already available with the investigating agency and

further documents can be collected by calling upon the parties to produce

them. As such, for the purpose of collecting documentary evidence, custody

of the applicants is uncalled for.

(v)    Although learned counsels for applicant as well as respondents have

cited several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has to be noted that

the position of law laid down therein is not disputed. The instant matter is an

application for grant of anticipatory bail and the judgments cited dealing

with legal issues based on evidence in respective cases are not required to be

dealt with at this stage, since it would involve rendering certain findings

about the documents and the same has to be avoided as the findings will

have to be recorded by the concerned Court on the basis of evidence to be

laid by the parties.

(vi)    Pertinent to note, the applicant has categorically stated that he has

attended the office of EOW on about 65 times and has expressed readiness

to attend the investigating agency. As such, there is nothing to indicate that

the applicant is fleeing away and would not be available during trial. Thus, it

is clear that the presence of this applicant can be secured for the purpose of

investigation and trial and his custodial interrogation is not warranted.

10.        In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the

personal liberty of this applicant needs to be protected by granting him bail


                                     11/12
                                                              918-ABA-1019-2026.odt

in anticipation of arrest.

11.        Hence, I pass the following order :

                                    : ORDER :

               i]   The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

             ii]    In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime

             No. 84 of 2025, registered with EOW, Mumbai, (C.R.

             No. 699 of 2025, dated 15.09.2025 registered with

             MIDC Police Station, Mumbai) for the offence

             punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471

             and 474 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, he be

             released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.

             25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with

             one solvent surety of the like amount.

             iii]    The     applicant    shall   cooperate    with   the

             Investigating agency during investigation and trial.


             iv]     The applicant shall not directly or indirectly

             pressurise or influence the witnesses.

12.          Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and

disposed of.


                                          (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)


                                         12/12