KANTA AMBADAS MAGAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:37161




                                       1                        934 cri appln 1346.26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 9374 OF 2026

                        Prabhakar Jayaji Kale and others       ..   Applicants

                             Versus

                        The State of Maharashtra and another   ..   Respondents

                 Ms. Pooja S. Ingle, Advocate for the Applicants - Intervenors.
                 Ms. P. J. Bharad, A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
                 Shri Yogesh H. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 9.

                                         WITH
                     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1346 OF 2026

                        Kanta Ambadar Magar and others         ..   Applicants

                             Versus

                        The State of Maharashtra               ..   Respondent

                 Shri Yogesh H. Jadhav, Advocate, for the Applicants.
                 Ms. P. J. Bharad, A.P.P. for the Respondent.
                 Ms. Pooja S. Ingle, Advocate for the Intervenors.
                 Shri Sachin T. Salve, Advocate for the Informant.

                                   CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                    DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2026.

                 ORDER :


                 .      At the outset, learned counsel Ms. Ingale on behalf of
                 alleged purchasers seeks intervention in the present anticipatory
                 bail application. It is contention of the learned counsel for the
                 intervenors that on the basis of sale deed/agreement, the father
                       2                          934 cri appln 1346.26

of the present accused-applicants in bail application sold number
of plots from land gut No. 630 situated at Chikalthana to them.
It is her contention that just like first informant, right, title and
interest has been created in favour of the applicants in the
subject property.    She, therefore, seeks to be heard in the
anticipatory bail application.


2.    Learned counsel for the applicants/accused opposes said
contention by pointing out that no right, title and interest has
been created in favour of the intervenors in the said property. It
is his argument that no immovable property above Rs. 100/- is to
be sold unless there is a registered sale deed. It is his further
submission that even applicants dispute the signature of their
father on the said documents.


3.    Prima facie, perusal of the documents sought to be placed
on record indicate that no right, title and interest of the
applicants/intervenors has been created in the subject property.
As such they have no right to be heard. Hence application for
intervention stands dismissed.


4.    As far as application for pre-arrest bail is concerned, the
learned counsel for the applicants submits that first informant
has settled the dispute with the applicants.       It is his further
contention that there was registered sale deed in favour of the
informant executed by the father of the present applicants. He
supported facts of settlement arrived at with the informant. It is
                          3                         934 cri appln 1346.26

his submission that unlike the intervenors, after hearing the
parties, this Court finds that right, title and interest of the
informant was created in the subject property.


5.    Learned counsel for the informant on instructions records
no objection for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicants. He
places on record photo copy of compromise arrived at between the
parties. Copy of said compromise is taken on record and marked
‘X’ for identification.


6.    Learned A. P. P. though opposes grant of any protection to
the applicants, however, she cannot dispute settlement between
the parties.


7.    Prima facie, perusal of record indicates that as far as
informant is concerned, informant was having right, title and
interest in the subject property. The property was sold to him by
registered sale deed executed by the father of the applicants,
which is not so that of intervenors. In such situation, when the
dispute is only dispute between informant and the applicants-
accused and as they have settled the dispute, this Court finds no
reason not to grant protection to the applicants.


8.    In the instant crime the entire evidence is in the form of
documentary evidence. As such there would be no justification to
reject the anticipatory bail application. Hence following order.
                         4                          934 cri appln 1346.26

                                ORDER


A.    The anticipatory bail application is allowed.


B.    In the event of arrest of applicants in connection with Cr.
No. 409/2026 registered with M. I. D. C. Cidco Police Station,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable U/Sec.
316(2), 318(2), 324(4), 329(3) r/w Sec. 34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing PR
Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. FifteenThousand only) each with one
surety in the like amount.


C.    The applicants shall cooperate during the course of trial.


D.    Learned APP to communicate this order to the concerned
Investigating Officer.


E.    Application   for      intervention   and   anticipatory    bail
application stand disposed of.



                                             [ R. M. JOSHI, J. ]

bsb/Aug. 26