SIDDHARAM CHANNAPPA TELLUNGAI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                       7-ABA-1274-2026.doc



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION. NO. 1274 OF 2026

     1. Siddharam Channappa Tellungai            ..             Applicants
     2. Sohail Sopan Tamboli
V/S.
The State of Maharashtra                         ..             Respondent
                                    ------------------
Mr. Ayush Pasbola, for the Applicants.
Mr. Ashok S. Gawai, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Dipak Bhoi, API, Pali Police Station, Raigad present.
                                   --------------------
                                  CORAM         :     SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.
                                     DATE       :     28TH MAY 2026.
                                                      (VACATION COURT)
PC:


1.          This is an application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita 2023. The Applicants are apprehending

arrest in C.R. No. 2 of 26 registered with Pali Police Station for the offences

under Section 318(4), 336(1), 336(2), 336(3) and 338 of Bhartiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.


2.          The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Smt. Yashoda

Dattu Lahane is the owner and in possession of the ancestral land bearing

Survey No. 5/5 admeasuring 1032-00, No. 6/3 admeasuring 0-51-60 and

No. 6/5 admeasuring 0.01.00 totally admeasuring 1-84-60 acres. It is the


 Bhalerao                                                                          1 of 6
                                                                  7-ABA-1274-2026.doc


case of the prosecution that in the year 2023, she met one Naresh

Chandrakant Birasdar and one Balasaheb Ramlingrao Shinde, through

intermediaries Mahendra Narayan Patil, Tulshiram Pandurang Pawar and

Dilip Mohan Mohite and they had discussion with respect to the purchase of

her undivided share in the property mentioned hereinabove. It is the case

that Narendra Birajdar and Balasaheb Shinde offered in total Rs.

10,61,450/- after obtaining necessary permission for its sale. It is the case of

the prosecution that on 23 rd January 2023, Naresh Birasdar and one

Balasaheb Shinde, Mahendra Patil and the intermediary Tulshiram Pawar

invited her to Pali and handed over cheque No. 133189 of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs.

50,000/- in cash and orally assured to pay the balance amount in stages

after obtaining necessary permission for sale of the land/change of nature of

land/execution of sale deed. It is also further the case of the prosecution

that they also obtained her signature and thumb impression on the said

document. It is further the case that Mahendra Narayan Patil transferred Rs.

1 lakh into her account and orally assured to pay the balance amount. It is

further the case into year July 2024 her nephew, Chintaman Sukhdhare,

brought to her notice that the 7/12 extract discloses the names of Narendra

Birajdar and Balasaheb Shinde and inquired with her with respect to the

receipt of the full amount which was agreed to which she informed that only

1,50,000/- was received by her and Drupati Shirdhar Sawant had received

an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and there was amount outstanding. It is further

 Bhalerao                                                                     2 of 6
                                                                 7-ABA-1274-2026.doc


the case that the complainant tried to contact Tulshiram Pandurang Pawar

who gave evasive reply therefore she suspected their intentions. It is the case

that she obtained copy of sale deed from the office of Registrar and on

perusal she realized that she had not fixed her thumb impression on the said

document. It is further the case of the prosecution that Naresh Birajdar and

other co-accused, including applicants had forced her signature and that of

the witness and affixed the photograph of one Dhondabai Umaji Kapse. It is

further the case that since 23rd January 2023, she never visited office of the

Registrar and had not signed on the sale deed or affixed her thumb

impression or photograph. It is further the case that the cheques which were

issued thereafter came to be dishonored. Therefore, an FIR came to be

registered against the accused, including the present applicants.


3.          Heard learned counsel for the Applicants Mr. Ayush Pasbola and the

learned APP for the respondent.


4.          The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the present

applicants are innocent and have nothing to do with the alleged offence and

they have merely acted as a ‘Witness’ to the sale deed which was executed

by the other accused with the complainant. He submitted that there is no

inducement that has been made by the present applicants in any manner.

The Ld. Counsel for the Applicants also invited the attention of this Court to

the consent terms which were entered into between the wife of one of the


 Bhalerao                                                                    3 of 6
                                                                     7-ABA-1274-2026.doc


co-accused Naresh Birajdar and the complainant and pointed out that the

there is an agreement between them to pay the amount. The Ld. Counsel

further submitted that even otherwise, they are not concerned with the same

as they were merely witness to the sale deed. The Ld. Counsel further

submitted that this Court has granted interim protection to the principal

accused and that the same is still pending and another co-accused has been

released on regular bail by this court.


5.          Per contra, the learned APP has not disputed about the parties having

entered into consent terms, however, submitted that the application be

rejected.


6.          Having perused the FIR, prima facie it can be seen that the role of the

applicants is limited to being Witness to the Sale Deed which was executed

by the co-accused and the complainant and beyond that, there is no

allegation by the complainant against the present applicants that they have

in any manner induced her or coerced her into signing of any forged

documents or that they have forged any documents. It is also not the case of

the prosecution that any amount has been transferred into the account of

the present applicants. The fact that the applicants have signed as ‘Witness’

can be made out from the sale deed which is annexed to the application,

where their signatures can be seen as having signed as a ‘Witness’. Further

the other co-accused Narendra Birajdar against whom there are allegations,


 Bhalerao                                                                        4 of 6
                                                                     7-ABA-1274-2026.doc


has, through his wife, entered into consent terms with the complainant for

repayment of the amount, and he has been granted regular bail by this

Court. Another co-accused by name Balasaheb Shinde has been granted

interim protection by this court pending the Anticipatory Bail application

preferred by him. Taking into consideration all these aspects, this Court is of

the opinion that discretion of granting Anticipatory bail can be exercised in

favour of the present applicants on the following terms and conditions:


            I.     The Application is allowed. In the event of arrest, the

            applicants in C. R. No. 2 on 2026 registered with the Pali Police

            Station, be released on bail on executing a PR bond in sum of

            RS. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.


            II.    The Applicants shall attend the Pali Police Station as and

            when called for.


            III.   The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or in

            any manner, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat

            or promise to any person acquainted with that facts of the case

            so as to dissuade him the disclosing such facts to the court or to

            any Police Officer.


            IV.    The Applicants shall make themselves available for

            interrogation by the concerned police station as and when called



 Bhalerao                                                                        5 of 6
                                                                 7-ABA-1274-2026.doc


            for.


            V.     The applicants shall not leave India without the prior

            permission of the Court. Passport if any be deposited with the

            investigating officer.


8.          Application is disposed of in above terms.


                                                 (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)




 Bhalerao                                                                    6 of 6