MANINDARSINGH DHARAMSINGH JAHAGIRDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                -1-
                                                    aba1111.26.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

  918 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1111 OF 2026 WITH
           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2636 OF 2026
                     IN ABA/1111/2026

Manindarsingh Dharamsingh Jahagirdar           ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                       …..Respondent

Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. D. M. Mane,
Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State.
Mr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the informant.


                            AND
    ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2026 WITH
           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2708 OF 2026
                     IN ABA/1141/2026

Vitthal Kishan Rao Ghodke                      ..… Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                       .....Respondent

Mrs. A. N. Ansari, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State.
Mr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the informant.


                           AND
    ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1075 OF 2026 WITH
           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2573 OF 2026
                     IN ABA/1075/2026

Ganesh Vaijnath Rukke                          ..… Applicant
                                  -2-
                                                        aba1111.26.odt

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another                .....Respondents
…..

Mr. A. H. Dhupe Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State.
Mr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the informant.

                               CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                               DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026.

PER COURT :


1.       At the outset, learned Counsel Mr. Gadhe seeks permission to

assist learned APP in these matters.



2.       Learned Counsels for Applicants record no objection for the

same.



3.       In view of this, learned Counsel Mr. Gadhe is permitted to

assist    learned   APP.    Criminal    Application   Nos.   2636/2026,

2708/2026 and 2573/2026 stand allowed.



4.       Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

0231/2026, registered with Ardhapur Police Station, District Nanded,

for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190,
                                 -3-
                                                       aba1111.26.odt

329(3), 352, 351(2), 61(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 338

of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



5.    First   Information Report indicates that the owners of the

subject property made grievance with regard to fabrication of power

of attorney by their close relatives and on the basis of said

fabricated/forged power of attorney, agreement to sell came to be

executed in favour of Applicant Ganesh Rakke. The informant, after

getting knowledge of the said transaction and also about fabricated

power of attorney, published notice in the newspaper intimating the

public with regard to the same. Informant on fateful day came across

the Applicants Manindarsingh and Vitthal who claimed agreement to

sale being executed in their favour by Ganesh. They also claimed to

be in possession of land in question. On the basis of said First

Information Report, Applicants apprehend arrest.



6.    Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant

Manindarsingh submits that the Applicant is a purchaser of the

property having no knowledge with regard to the obtainment of power

of attorney or execution of agreement to sale on the basis of such

power of attorney in favour of Applicant Ganesh. It is contended that
                                   -4-
                                                            aba1111.26.odt

Applicant Ganesh had paid consideration to the constituted attorney

of the owners by bank transaction and as such this Applicant had no

reason to enter into said transaction. It is contended that amount of

Rs. 15,00,000/- came to be paid in cash which indicates the

transaction being supported by payment of consideration. According

to him, since the offence pertains to documentary evidence, custodial

interrogation of Applicant Manindarsingh is not necessary.



7.    Learned Counsel for Applicant Vitthal submits that though

Applicant Vitthal was signatory to the agreement to sale executed in

favour of Applicant Ganesh, he is not responsible for the contents of

said document.      Insofar as agreement to sale executed jointly in

favour of Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh is concerned, it is

contended    that   since   the   said   transaction   is   supported   by

consideration, she claims that the liberty of Applicant deserves to be

protected.



8.    Learned Counsel for Applicant Ganesh contends that the

amounts were paid by cheque to the executor of the document and it

is only after realising the fact that this could be a case of execution of

agreement on the basis of tented power of attorney, the post dated
                                  -5-
                                                       aba1111.26.odt

cheques issued were stopped.        It is his contention that since

Applicant Vitthal was the mediator of the said transaction, at his

instance, agreement to sale came to be executed in favour Applicants

Vitthal and Manindarsingh.         He also claims that since the

transaction   revolves   around   documentary     evidence,   custodial

interrogation of Applicant Ganesh is not necessary.      He, however,

specifically denies receipt of any consideration from Vitthal and

Manindarsingh.



9.    Learned APP and learned Counsel for informant opposed grant

of relief to the Applicants. in order to support their submission, they

drew attention of the Court to the fact that Applicant Ganesh initially

had obtained the agreement on 19.04.2026 in respect of the same

property from husband of Rekha. It is their contention that it is not

possible that after executing the said agreement on 19.04.2026,

within 10 to 11 days, another agreement is executed with Rekha

accepting her to be the constituted attorney of the original owner.

This, according to them, creates serious doubt. It is also contended

that Applicant Ganesh inspite of knowledge of publication of notice

with regard to fabrication of power of attorney, executed agreement to

sale and tried to induct Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh in the
                                 -6-
                                                       aba1111.26.odt

property. This, according to them, clearly shows collusion between

all the Applicants in order to grab the property of the informant. It is

their further submission that in the Adhar card annexed to the power

of attorney in question the address of the original owner is shown as

Thane whereas in the original Adhar Card it is shown as Pune. This,

according to them, is sufficient to indicate fabrication of power of

attorney. They also claim that there are similar crimes registered the

Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh.



10.   Though it is sought to be argued that the present crime

involves documentary evidence, prima facie perusal of the record

indicates common intention and collusion between the Applicants in

order to commit the crime in question. Record shows that Applicant

Ganesh got executed the agreement from husband of Rekha on

19.04.2026 in respect of the subject property.             Immediately

thereafter, he entered into agreement with Rekha, who claims to be

the constituted attorney of original owner, in respect of same

property.   The said agreement is witnessed by Applicant Vitthal in

which favour Applicant Ganesh executed agreement to sale. These

facts clearly indicate about the suspicious nature of transaction so

also knowledge of all accused persons of the same.
                                 -7-
                                                       aba1111.26.odt



11.   It is sought to be argued on behalf of Applicant Ganesh that he

is the bonafide purchaser of the property and in order to ensure that

he recovers the money, he executed agreement to sale in favour of the

mediator i.e. Vitthal. Prima facie perusal of record does not support

the said contention.    It is practically not possible to accept that

Applicant Ganesh got executed the document from husband of Rekha

on 19.04.2026 and within short period of time, Rekha executes a

document in his favour in the capacity of constituted power of

attorney of original owner and he accepts the same.          Moreover,

inspite of knowledge of publication of notice by original owner

creating doubt with regard to the power of attorney executed in

favour of Rekha, Applicant Ganesh executes another agreement in

favour of Vitthal and Manindarsingh. No prudent man is expected to

do this once it is within his knowledge that there is every possibility

of his own agreement being executed on the basis of false/fabricated

power of attorney.



12.   Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh’s claim of bonafide

purchasers of subject lands fails in view of candid statement made by
                                  -8-
                                                        aba1111.26.odt

learned Counsel for Ganesh that he did not pay any consideration to

them.



13.     Pertinently, there is allegation in the First Information Report

that Manindarsingh and Vitthal went to the spot and asserted their

right in respect of the said property on the basis of agreement to sale

executed by Ganesh. This fact clearly shows that this apparently is a

case of collusion between Applicants in order to grab the property of

the informant.    Moreover, there are antecedents against Applicants

Ganesh and Vitthal of committing similar offence. Having regard to

said facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is sought by the

prosecution. As a result of this, Applicants have failed to make out a

case for protecting their liberty.   Hence, all the applications stand

dismissed.


                                                  ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb