REEMA AJAY BANSALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1341 OF 2026



Reema Ajay Bansal,                      ]
Aged 56 years, Occ: Service             ]
Residing at Bungalow No.A-22            ]
Zarina Park, Sion Trombay Road,         ]
Opposite BARC, Mankhurd,                ]
Mumbai – 400 088                        ]     ...Applicant.

                 Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                ]
through Govandi Police Station,         ]
Mumbai.                                 ]     ...Respondent.

Mr. Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sujay Shingade and Mr.
Ganesh Raju Narula i/b Mr. Vidit Divya Kumat, Advocates for the
Applicant.
Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Prashant. P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent-State.

                                CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

                                DATE        : 19TH MAY 2026

                                              [ VACATION COURT ]
P.C. :

1.       By the present Application, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in

First Information Report (FIR) bearing C.R. No.0222 of 2026 dated 18 th

April 2026 registered with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai for the




                                    1/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                   bdpsps
alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338 and

340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). The Applicant is

the sole accused named in the said FIR. The complainant, Mrs. Naresh

Narinderpal Aggarwal, is related to the Applicant. The crux of the

allegations is that the Applicant forged a Release Deed dated 27th January

2001, pursuant to which the complainant’s share in the subject property

is alleged to have been transferred by complainant to the Applicant.

2.       The relevant facts, in brief, are as under:

        (i) The property forming the subject matter of the FIR is

        shop no. 209 situated at Shrikant Chambers Co-operative

        Housing Society, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai.

        According to the FIR, the said premises were jointly

        purchased in the year 1994 by the complainant’s husband

        and his brother, Surinderpal Aggarwal. The Applicant is the

        daughter-in-law of Surinderpal Aggarwal. Though there

        appears to be some controversy as to whether it was jointly

        purchased or not, the same is not of immediate relevance

        for the purpose of deciding the present Application.

        (ii)     It appears that inter se disputes subsequently arose

        between the brothers. Suit No.2868 of 2000 came to be



                                      2/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                    bdpsps
        filed before this Court by the complainant’s husband

        against several parties, including the Applicant’s father-in-

        law. In the said suit, the complainant’s husband specifically

        sought a declaratory relief regarding the existence and

        enforceability of an oral family arrangement. The pleadings

        in the suit recorded that pursuant to mediation amongst

        family members, it was agreed that the subject shop no. 209

        would fall to the share of the Applicant’s father-in-law. The

        plaint further states that the parties had agreed to implement

        the family arrangement and that a written record of the

        settlement terms had also been prepared during mediation.

        Thus, it was the specific case of the complainant’s husband

        in the civil proceedings that the subject property was agreed

        to be allotted to the share of the Applicant’s father-in-law

        under the family settlement.

        (iii)      During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the

        Release Deed dated 27th January 2001, which forms the

        subject matter of the present FIR, was purportedly

        executed by the complainant in favour of the Applicant.

        The complainant alleges that the said Release Deed is



                                       3/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                     bdpsps
        forged and fabricated and, in any event, being

        unregistered, could not have created any rights in favour

        of the Applicant.

        (iv)       On 11th February 2014, the share certificate in

        respect of the subject property came to be transferred in

        the name of the Applicant by the concerned Co-operative

        Society on the basis of the aforesaid Release Deed. A few

        days later, on 15th February 2014, Suit No.2868 of 2000

        came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

        (v)       Thereafter, on 10th April 2014, the Applicant

        transferred the subject property to Sajal Realities Private

        Limited by way of a registered Sale Deed. Subsequently,

        on 24th January 2020, Sajal Realities Private Limited

        further transferred the property to Mrs. Sandhya Sanjeev

        Chipalkatti and Mr. Sanjeev Vasant Chipalkatti by

        another registered conveyance.


2.    Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned senior counsel for the Applicant,

submits that the allegations of forgery are misconceived and that

the dispute essentially arises from pre-existing civil and family

disputes between the parties. He submits that the complainant’s


                                      4/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                   bdpsps
husband had himself asserted rights flowing from the oral family

arrangement            in   the   earlier   civil   proceedings   and   had

acknowledged that the subject property was to go to the share of

the Applicant’s father-in-law. The pleadings in the civil suit shows

that the Applicant’s husband has given up all his claims in the

subject property. The Applicant is a 55-year-old lady, who is

related to the complainant and has no criminal antecedents. He

submits that the Applicant is willing to cooperate with the

investigation. It is pointed out that the original Release Deed has

already been handed over to the Investigating Officer by the

subsequent purchasers and no purpose would be served by

custodial interrogation. Mr. Kulkarni contends that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the Applicant’s

prayer for anticipatory bail.

3.       On the other hand, Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra, learned counsel

appearing for the complainant, relies upon the order dated 6 th May

2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and

submits that the allegations of forgery are serious in nature.

According to him, the circumstances surrounding the transaction

itself indicate fabrication, particularly since the property was



                                            5/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                          bdpsps
transferred by the Applicant to Sajal Realities Private Limited, in

which the Applicant herself holds a 50% shareholding. Mr.

Mishra invited my attention to the order dated 11 th February 2014

passed by the Stamp Authorities, whereby additional stamp duty

and penalty were imposed and wherein it was specifically

observed that mere payment of stamp duty would not result in

registration of the Release Deed. The Applicant had filed an

incorrect Loss Report dated 5th March 2026 alleging that the

original Release Deed had been misplaced while shifting her

office premises. On the basis of these circumstances, the learned

counsel submits that custodial interrogation is necessary and that

the present Application deserves to be rejected.

4.       Mr. Prashant Jadhav, learned APP appearing for the State,

submits that the Applicant has not cooperated with the

investigation and that the Investigating Officer was constrained to

issue notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). He submits that serious allegations of

forgery have been levelled and that custodial interrogation of the

Applicant is necessary for a proper investigation.

5.       I have perused the record and considered the rival


                                   6/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                  bdpsps
submissions. The dispute appears to arise out of a family dispute,

which had earlier formed the subject matter of civil proceedings

before this Court. The pleadings in Suit no. 2868 of 2000 assume

significance, inasmuch as the complainant’s husband had

specifically sought declaration and enforcement of an oral family

arrangement under which shop no.209 was agreed to be allotted to

the share of the Applicant’s father-in-law. In my view, the

aforesaid pleadings which constitute judicial admissions cannot be

simply brushed aside. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Mishra that

the Applicant had absolutely no claim or connection with the

subject property cannot be viewed in isolation from the

surrounding circumstances reflected in the civil proceedings.

6.       It is also relevant to note that consequent upon the Release

Deed dated 27th January 2001, subsequent registered transactions

have admittedly taken place, including the Sale Deed dated 10 th

April 2014 in favour of Sajal Realities Private Limited and

thereafter the conveyance dated 24th January 2020 in favour of

third-party purchasers. However, no proceedings have been

initiated in relation to the impugned Release Deed for a

considerable period or even the subsequent conveyances. Though



                                    7/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                    bdpsps
these transactions do not establish the genuineness or legality of

the Release Deed, they are also relevant circumstances while

considering the necessity of custodial interrogation.

7.       The original Release Deed is stated to have already been

handed over to the Investigating Officer through the subsequent

purchasers. The apprehension of tampering with the document is

unfounded. It is settled law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court       in     Siddharam   Satlingappa   Mhetre     v.   State   of

Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 that while considering the prayer

for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between

two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair

and full investigation and there should be prevention of

harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.

The Applicant is a lady aged about 55 years, has no criminal

antecedents and has expressed willingness to cooperate with the

investigation. Except for the general assertion by the learned APP

that custodial interrogation is required, no specific material has

been pointed out demonstrating why such interrogation is

indispensable for the purposes of investigation. In these

circumstances, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the



                                     8/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                      bdpsps
Applicant is not warranted. The present Anticipatory Bail

Application is allowed on the following terms:

           (a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in FIR

           bearing C.R. No.0222 of 2026 dated 18th April 2026

           registered with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai,

           the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing

           P.R. Bond/S.B. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-

           with one or two local sureties in the like amount.

           (b)     The Applicant shall report to the Investigating

           Officer of Govandi Police Station, Mumbai on the

           1st and 3rd Monday of every month between 11 a.m.

           to 2 p.m. commencing from 25th May 2026 till

           filing of the charge-sheet. In the event, the

           Applicant is required on any other day by the

           Investigating Officer, the Applicant shall ensure her

           presence before the said Officer.

           (c)     The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly

           tamper with the evidence nor influence any

           witnesses or persons concerned with the case.

           (d)         The Applicant shall not leave India without



                                          9/10
7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                 bdpsps
                                 prior permission of the trial Court.


                                 (e)         The Applicant shall cooperate with the

                                 investigation and also in the proceedings before the

                                 trial Court.


                      8.       In the event, the Applicant violates any of the conditions

                      specified in this order, the anticipatory bail granted herein shall be

                      liable to be cancelled. It is clarified that the observations made in

                      this order are limited to the disposal of the present Application and

                      the Trial Court shall proceed in the matter without being influenced

                      by the observations made hereinabove.




BHARAT
                                                                     [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2026.05.21
13:30:52 +0530




                                                             10/10
                      7 ABA-1341-26(1).doc                                                     bdpsps