LATIFUDDIN ISMAIL UDDIN SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:39988




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     933 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1480 OF 2026

                                LATIFUDDIN ISMAIL UDDIN SHAIKH
                                              VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 ...
           Mr. Vinod I. Thole, Advocate for Applicant
           Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                     CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED    : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 252/2026,

           registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,

           for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) r/w

           34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 82-C of the Indian

           Registration Act.


           2.    The First Information Report lodged by the Joint Sub-Registrar,

           Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, indicates that a complaint was made to the said

           office by Smt. Malati Khanapurkar regarding the alleged forging of her

           signature on the power of attorney executed in respect of City Survey No.

           20663/1/A/10, Plot No. 32, Kotwalapura, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. It is

           further alleged that, on the basis of the said power of attorney, a sale deed


           933 ABA 1480.2026.odt                                                   1 of 4
came to be executed and the present applicant is the purchaser of the said

property. Thus, the allegation is that the present applicant is a party to the

crime in question and has been a beneficiary thereof.


3.    The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that, in the present

case, the applicant is the purchaser of the property and, believing the

registered power of attorney to be genuine, entered into the transaction.

According to him, before executing the sale deed in respect of the said

property, a notice was published in the newspaper and no objection was

raised by anyone, and as such, the sale deed came to be executed. It is his

submission that the applicant paid the consideration amount both in cash and

by cheque, which shows that the transaction entered into by the applicant was

genuine. It is his submission that the applicant has no criminal antecedents

and, since the entire evidence is documentary in nature, his custodial

interrogation is not necessary. He further submits that, if directed, he will

cooperate with the investigation.


4.    The learned APP opposed the grant of any protection to the applicant

by referring to the allegations against the applicant in the First Information

Report. She pointed out that there is evidence to show that the power of

attorney of Smt. Khanapurkar is a fabricated document, which could be

ascertained from the bogus Aadhaar Card used for the purpose of executing


933 ABA 1480.2026.odt                                                   2 of 4
the said document. It is submitted that the applicant is a beneficiary of the

crime in question. Though it is accepted that the applicant has no criminal

antecedents, prosecution claims that there is syndicate which appropriate

properties of people and the possibility of applicant being part of such

syndicate along with accused No.1 is required to be investigated.


5.    Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is sufficient

material to show that the power of attorney allegedly executed by Smt.

Khanapurkar is a fabricated document. No doubt, before getting the sale deed

executed, the applicant had published a notice to that effect; however, perusal

of the power of attorney clearly indicates that the constituted attorney had no

authority under the said power of attorney to receive any consideration.


6.    A specific query was made to the learned Advocate for the applicant as

to whether the consideration was paid to the original owner. The learned

Advocate for the applicant, in response to the said query, submitted that it

could be a mistake on the part of the applicant to have paid the consideration

to the constituted attorney and not to the original owner.


7.    This Court cannot ignore the fact that apparently the offence has been

committed in systematic manner and involvement of other accused is apparent.

If the applicant has relied upon the power of attorney in order to seek



933 ABA 1480.2026.odt                                                      3 of 4
execution of the sale deed in his favour, he cannot now be permitted to

contend that it was a mistake on his part to pay the consideration to the

constituted attorney and not to the original owner. This Court also takes note

of the fact that any prudent person, upon coming to know that the sale deed

executed in his favour was based on a bogus power of attorney, would not

seek to justify the said sale deed, which was sought to be executed by the

applicant. Needless to say, having regard to the manner in which crime has

been committed, in order to ascertain the conspiracy as well as the connection

between the applicant and the co-accused, his custodial interrogation is

necessary.


8.    Hence, the application stands rejected.


                                                    ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




933 ABA 1480.2026.odt                                                    4 of 4