RAVI KALLAPPA PUJARI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

vaishnavi

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1450 OF 2026


            Pravin Chavinath Singh                                    ...Applicant
                       V/s.
            State of Maharashtra                                      ...Respondent

                                        WITH
                 CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1460 OF 2026

            Ravi Kallappa Pujari                                      ...Applicant
                       V/s.
            State of Maharashtra                                      ...Respondent


            Mr. Kusum Pandey a/w Ms. Divya Pandit, for the Applicant.
            Ms. Anagha A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State.
            Mr. Subhash Jha a/w Mr. Siddharth Jha i/b Law Global Advocates for
            Intervenor.
            Mr. Nitin Gije, PI, Charkop Police Station, is present.



                              CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                              DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2026.
            P.C. :-

            1.           Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for

            respondent-State and learned counsel for complainant.

            2.           The applicants have filed the instant application seeking

            pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS for offence bearing C.R. No.


                                               1/9
                                   aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

332 of 2026 registered with Charcop Police Station for offence under

Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 338 read with

section 3(5) of the BNS of 2023.

3.        The FIR is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the

complainant, alleging that the accused have acted in collusion to forge

and fabricate the document of Reconstitution of Partnership Deed

dated 10.07.2025 by adding two clauses, i.e. Clause Nos. 23 and 24,

in the said document and by forging the signatures of the parties, in

order to obtain an advantage. On the basis of report, the FIR is

registered against four accused persons and apprehending arrest,

accused no. 1-Ravi Kalappa Pujari and accused no. 2-Uday Kalappa

Pujari, have filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1460 of 2026, so

also accused no. 3 Pravin Chavinath Singh and Vinay Shamcharan

Singh, have filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1450 of 2026.

Since common arguments are advanced by the learned counsel for

applicants as well as learned APP and learned counsel for respondent

no. 2, both the matters being decided by this common order.

4.        Advocate Kusum Pandey, learned counsel for applicants,

submitted that the applicants are falsely implicated, since the offence

is registered by way of counterblast to an earlier report lodged by the

applicant/Ravi Pujari, on the basis of which FIR No. 03 of 2026 has

                                   2/9
                                  aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

been registered with Kashimira Police Station against the complainant

and others for several offences. She submitted that the said FIR was

registered on 02.01.2026 on the basis of allegations by the

complainant therein i.e. Ravi Pujari ( who is applicant in Anticipatory

Bail Application No. 1460 of 2026), that the accused persons named

therein have forged and fabricated the document of Reconstitution of

Partnership Deed by deleting Clause Nos. 23 and 24. It is thus

submitted that the complainant and other accused persons are facing

charges of similar offence in the said FIR and the FIR in question is

lodged by way of counterblast.

          Apart from this, learned counsel for applicants submitted

that the grievance raised by the complainant on same set of facts was

found non-cognizable by Police department and the complaint of the

complainant was closed by communication dated 02.01.2026 issued

by the Assistant Police Inspector of Kashimira Police Station (page 96

of the paper book).

5.        Learned counsel for applicants also submitted that the

allegations about forgery and fabrication of documents by inserting

the two clauses are made by the complainant by way of after thought

and in order to create a false defence in the criminal case which is

already registered against the complainant. By inviting attention to

                                 3/9
                                   aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

statement of the complainant recorded on 27.10.2025 in connection

with the same controversy, she submitted that there are no allegations

in the said statement about any kind of forgery by way of addition of

clauses. She, therefore, submitted that the allegations in the FIR are

without any basis. Apart from this, she submitted that the controversy

between the parties is now refered to arbitration and considering the

nature of the dispute, there is no need for custody of the applicants.

6.         It is also submitted by applicants that, considering the

contentions of the applicants, this court had earlier granted interim

protection by order dated 24th June 2026, and accordingly, the

applicants have attended the Police Station and extended cooperation.

She submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the

applicants and they are still ready to extend cooperation during

investigation and trial. She, therefore, prays for confirmation of the

interim protection.

7.         As against this learned counsel for respondent no.

2/intervener vehemently opposed the application and submitted that

there are specific allegations in the FIR about acts of forgery and

fabrication of documents and investigation in that regard is necessary.

By inviting attention to the document of Reconstitution of Partnership

Deed dated 10th July 2025, he submitted that there is variance with

                                  4/9
                                   aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

respect to the two Clauses i.e. Clause Nos. 23 and 24, as against

Clause Nos. 1 to 22, on comparison of the font size and spacing. He

submitted that there is variance with the signatures of the parties on

the added page, which makes the document suspicious and in view of

this, he submitted that the applicants, being the beneficiary of the said

two clauses, need to be prosecuted. He also submitted that the offence

of criminal breach of trust is apparent in view of the fact that the

document which was submitted before the Registrar of Firms did not

contain the said two clauses and the accused have introduced the two

clauses in order to obtain unlawful advantage.

8.         Learned APP for the respondent also opposed the

application and submitted that there are specific allegations in the FIR

about alteration of the document by adding the two clauses bearing

clause Nos. 23 and 24. However, she also candidly submitted that a

separate offence bearing FIR No. 03 of 2026 is also registered with

Kashimira Police Station on the basis of report lodged by Ravi Pujari

(applicant herein), on the allegation that the said two clauses are

deleted from the said document. She submitted that, in view of the

registration of the offence, further investigation needs to be

conducted. On the basis of instructions from the Investigating Officer,

who is personally present in the court, she submitted that the original

                                  5/9
                                   aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

document of Reconstitution of Partnership Deed is still not supplied by

the complainant to the Investigating Officer and in this situation, the

investigation is still going on. She has not disputed that the applicants

have attended the Police Station in accordance with the interim

protection order.

9.         In the background of above contentions, I have perused the

FIR and the documents placed on record. It has to be noted that the

applicant (Ravi Pujari) has earlier lodged FIR No. 03 of 2026 with

Kashimira Police Station alleging several offences against the

complainant (Rajeshkumar Ramnarayan Jha) and others in which it is

alleged that the two clauses i.e. clause Nos. 23 and 24 of the

document of Reconstitution of Partnership Deed, were deleted by the

accused persons therein. It is crucial to note that, with regard to the

said two clauses, the FIR in question is lodged by the complainant,

alleging that the two clauses are added by these applicants. As such,

the controversial issue as to whether the two clauses are added or

deleted is subject matter of investigation. Thus, for this purpose, the

investigation could be further conducted on the basis of documents to

be made available by the concerned parties.

10.        In view of the fact that FIR No. 03 of 2026 was registered

on 02.01.2026, with Kashimira Police Station, on the report lodged by

                                  6/9
                                   aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

the applicants herein, it prima facie appears that the FIR against these

applicants (bearing FIR No. 332 of 2026) is registered by way of

counterblast. Further, it has to be noted that the communication dated

02.01.2026 was issued by Assistant Police Inspector of Kashimira

Police Station about allegations of some transactions in the name of

Kiran Construction Company with respect to land bearing Survey No.

161, stating therein that no cognizable offence was found and the

complaint was closed. The grievance raised by the complainant in the

FIR in question also revolves around the sale transaction of Survey No.

161 and as such, the contentions of the applicants about the

controversy being a civil dispute also needs consideration. It has also

to be noted that, in the complainant’s statement recorded on

27.10.2025, there are no allegations of any kind of insertion of

Clauses 23 and 24 and as such, the allegations made in the FIR in

question dated 24.04.2026, prima facie appear to be raised by way of

after thought.

11.        Having regard to the allegations in FIR and after

considering the contentions canvassed by both the parties, it appears

that the alleged complaint is about the criminal breach of trust and

cheating only on account of addition of the two clauses in the said

document    of   Reconstitution   of    Partnership   Deed.   As   such,

                                  7/9
                                    aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

investigation in the offence would be conducted on the basis of

documentary evidence. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the

applicants need not be insisted upon. It is crucial to note that the

complainant is required to make available the original document for

the purpose of further investigation.

12.        It is also relevant to note that the parties have already

invoked arbitration clause and the arbitration proceedings with

respect to the actual controversy are already going on. Thus, the

contentions of respondent no. 2 about manipulation of the document

by addition of two clauses or contentions about variance in the

document with respect to the font size, manner of description do not

demonstrate any need for custodial interrogation of the applicants at

this stage. The allegations about forgery of the documents are subject

matter of investigation and the same can be conducted without

insisting for custody of these applicants.

13.        In view of the above, it has to be noted the applicants were

granted interim protection by order dated 24 th June 2026, and there is

nothing on record to show that they have misused the liberty. It has

been pointed out that the applicants have attended the Charcop Police

Station in accordance with interim protection order and they are ready

to further extend cooperation. In view of all these aspects, I find this

                                   8/9
                                   aba-1450-2026,aba-1460-2026.doc

to be a fit case to confirm the interim protection by directing the

applicants to extend cooperation during investigation and trial.

14.        Hence, for all the above mentioned reasons, the instant

application is allowed. The interim protection granted by order dated

24th June 2026 stands confirmed, with modification of the condition of

attendance, with a direction that the applicants shall attend the

Investigating Officer as and when called upon.



                                        (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)




                                  9/9