RAJESH KUNVERJI GALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                   17-ABA-1200-2025.doc

Harish

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1200 OF 2025
Rajesh Kunverji Gala                                   ...Applicant
           V/s.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr.                            ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Meghshyam Kocharekar a/w Mehul Rathod, Ms. Dhanashree
Pawaskar i/b Mehul Rathod, for the Applicant.
Ms. Poonam Bhosale, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Sagar Batawa, for the Respondent No.2.
API - Mr. Shekhar Baramati, Malad Police Station is present.
________________________________________________________
             CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
             DATE : 07TH JULY, 2026.


P.C. :-


1.            Heard learned Advocate Mr. Meghshyam Kocharekar

for the applicant, Advocate Ms. Poonam Bhosale learned APP for

the State, and learned Advocate Sagar Batawa for the respondent

no.2.


2.            The applicant has filed the instant application under

section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS),

seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 1030 of 2022 registered with



                                 1/6
                                                 17-ABA-1200-2025.doc

Malad Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections

406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.


3.          At the instance of the respondent no.2/complainant,

an FIR came to be registered against this applicant on the basis of

allegation that this applicant has transferred the shop which

belonged to the complainant on the basis of a forged affidavit

which was executed by this applicant in the year 1991. It is

alleged in the report that the said affidavit dated 16 th May, 1991

is forged because it mentions consumer number of electricity

meter which was not in existence at that time, as the electric

meter of the shop was connected on 10th February 1993. It is

alleged that an agreement to sell was executed with respect to

the said shop in the year 1997 in favour of the applicant, and the

person who had executed the agreement viz. Mr. Parasmal

Rathod, was not residing on the address mentioned in the said

agreement. It is therefore, alleged that this applicant has

committed offence of forgery and cheating on the basis of

affidavit dated 16th May, 1991 and in view of these allegations,

                                2/6
                                                        17-ABA-1200-2025.doc

the offence came to be registered against the applicant on 18 th

July, 2022.


4.            Learned advocate Mr. Meghshyam Kocharekar counsel

for the applicant submitted that the dispute is mainly civil in nature

and the FIR is lodged after an unexplained delay of about 18 years. He

submits that the complainant has tried to dig up a stale dispute and,

without any basis, has levelled frivolous allegations against this

applicant. He submits that the applicant has purchased the said

premises in the year 1997 by a registered sale deed, and as such, the

applicant is falsely implicated in the instant crime.


5.            Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that, this

Court has granted an interim protection in his favour by order dated

21st, July 2025, and accordingly this applicant has attended the

concerned police station and has provided his specimen handwriting,

signature and co-operated with the investigating agency. As such, it is

submitted that there cannot be any need for custodial interrogation of

this applicant and that the interim protection granted earlier needs to

be confirmed.


6.            Per contra, learned APP for the respondent and learned

advocate Mr. Sagar Batawa for the respondent no.2 opposed the

                                   3/6
                                                       17-ABA-1200-2025.doc

application. They submitted that there is discrepancy in the affidavit of

the year 1991, which mentions the electric consumer number which

was not in existence at that time, and since the no-objection certificate

is granted on the basis of the said affidavit, the entire transaction in

favour of the applicant of the year 1997 is suspicious. It is however

not disputed that the allegations are with respect to forgery of the

document of the year 1991 and further there is no dispute that the

applicant has purchased the said room in the year 1997.


7.           Learned APP for the respondent does not dispute the

contention of the applicant that he has attended the police station as

per the directions of this Court while granting interim protection by

order dated 21st July, 2025. It is also not disputed that the applicant

has extended co-operation by providing his specimen handwriting and

signature. As such, in view of this, it is clear that the applicant has not

misused the interim protection.


8.           It has to be noted that the entire allegations against the

applicant are with respect to the affidavit dated 16 th May, 1991 and

that too on account of the discrepancy about mention of an electric

consumer number. The FIR is lodged against the applicant on 18 th

July, 2022 with respect to the affidavit dated 16th May, 1991 and thus


                                    4/6
                                                       17-ABA-1200-2025.doc

it clearly appears that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about

18 years. Apart from this, a perusal of allegations reveals that the

dispute in question is essentially of a civil nature and there is no

explanation of the complainant in not raising any grievance since the

year 1993, which creates a doubt about the credibility of the

allegations.


9.             Considering the nature of allegations, the investigation

can be conducted on the basis of forensic examination of the

applicant’s handwriting and signature. Further, considering the fact

that the applicant has extended co-operation by attending the

investigating agency and has given his specimen handwriting and

signature in accordance with the interim protection order passed by

this Court, there does not appear any need for custodial interrogation

of this applicant. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 21 st July,

2025 records a statement made by the investigating officer that the

applicant will not be arrested and in view of the said statement, the

applicant was protected till today. Hence, I find that the interim

protection granted earlier needs to be confirmed.


           Hence, I pass following order:

                        ::ORDER::

                                   5/6
                                                      17-ABA-1200-2025.doc

          i] In the event of arrest of the Applicant in Crime

          No. 1030 of 2022 registered with Malad Police

          Station for the offence punishable under

          Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 read

          with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. , he be

          released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of

          Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)

          with one solvent surety in the like amount.


          ii] The Applicant is directed to co-operate with the

          investigating agency during the investigation and

          trial.


          iii]     The Applicant shall not tamper with the

          prosecution witnesses or evidence.


10.         In     view   of   the    above,   the   Anticipatory   Bail

Application is allowed and disposed of.




                                       (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)




                                     6/6