MAHENDRA PRATAPSING RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                               1
                                                  1803.24ABA

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

902 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1803 OF 2024

            MAHENDRA PRATAPSING RAJPUT
                       VERSUS
             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                             ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.S.A.Raut h/f. Mr.N.L.Chaudhari
        APP for Respondent-State : Mr.K.K.Naik
   Advocate for the complainant : Mr.Sajte S. Jadhav
                            …

                       WITH
      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1001 OF 2025
 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1803 OF 2024
                        …

                       CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                       DATE        : 17.02.2026

P.C. :


1]         Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the

learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned

counsel for the complainant.


2]         The applicant has approached this Court

seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 83 of

2024, registered with Jalgaon City Police Station, Taluka
                              2
                                                  1803.24ABA

and District Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under

Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 192 r/w. 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This Court, vide order dated

22.10.2024, has granted interim protection to the present

applicant on the condition that the applicant shall attend

the concerned police station once in a week.


3]          The learned counsel for the applicant Mr.Raut

submits that the applicant has attended the concerned

police station and has co-operated with the investigation.

Hence, the interim order dated 22.10.2024 may be

confirmed   and   the   applicant   may   be   released   on

anticipatory bail. He further submits that date of death of

the brother of the complainant i.e. Ramdas Peswani, who is

alleged to be impersonated by executing a sale deed, is

17.11.2023, as such, the said allegations made in the FIR

are improbable. The false implication of the applicant in the

present crime cannot be ruled out and as such the applicant

may be released on anticipatory bail. He further submits

that the other co-accused, namely, Sayyed Amir Sayyed
                              3
                                                   1803.24ABA

Nawaj and Shaikh Hasan Shaikh Bashir, who are witness to

the alleged forged sale deed dated 18.05.2022, are released

on anticipatory bail. The co-accused, namely, Ajay Kandare,

is also released on anticipatory bail vide order dated

26.11.2024. Thus by applying the principles of parity the

present applicant may be protected. The investigation

almost   appears   to   be   completed,   hence,    custodial

interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. Since

the applicant has co-operated with the investigation, the

applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.


4]          As against this, learned APP Mr.Naik for the

respondent-State as well as the learned counsel for assisting

the P.P. vehemently oppose the present application on the

ground that the applicant is a fraudster, who had earlier

executed fraudulent Power of Attorney on 10.07.2018 by

impersonating Ramdas Peswani i.e. real brother of the

complainant and had, thereafter, obtained compensation

from the National Highway Authority of India [NHAI]. The

learned counsel further submits that 12 R. land out of Gat
                              4
                                                  1803.24ABA

No.877/2 was acquired by the NHAI. The documents

pertaining to the disbursement of the compensations bears

the photographs of the present applicant describing himself

as Power of Attorney holder of the real brother of the

complainant. Not only this the applicant has, thereafter,

also executed a bogus sale deed dated 18.05.2022 in his

name by impersonating Ramdas Peswani and showing him

as vendor of the remaining area of 28.5 R. out of Survey

No.877/2. The photographs and the signatures of the

Ramdas Peswani are bogus. The real brother of the

complainant, namely, Ramdas Peswani, had never executed

any such Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant, nor

had executed any sale deed on 18.05.2022 in favour of the

applicant. Though the applicant was protected by order

dated 22.10.2024 by this Court with a condition that the

applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a

week, the applicant has failed to attend the police station

even though notices were issued to him on 27.10.2024.

Accordingly, entry to that effect has taken by the police

authorities in the station diary. The applicant has failed to
                               5
                                                   1803.24ABA

comply with the conditions imposed by this Court. There is

ample evidence collected by the prosecution to bring home

the guilt of the applicant in the said crime. The applicant

had not only executed bogus Power of Attorney but had also

received amount of compensation from the NHAI for the

land acquired by the National Highway Authority of India.

The real brother of the complainant has expired actually on

06.04.2025 while taking treatment at Pune, however, the

applicant has manufactured bogus document of death

showing that the brother of the complainant has died on

17.11.2023.    Thus,    the    applicant    is   involved    in

manufacturing and forging several documents to somehow

grab the property of the complainant’s brother. The

custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary

and this is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail, hence, the

application may be rejected.


5]          I have gone through the investigation papers

made available by the learned APP. Perusal of the statement

of the complainant–Ajay Peswani would show that the
                             6
                                                1803.24ABA

applicant Mahendra Rajput has executed bogus Power of

Attorney dated 10.07.2018 and had used the said Power of

Attorney to receive compensation from the NHAI. Perusal of

the Power of Attorney allegedly executed on 10.07.2018

shows that the photograph of Ramdas Peswani is totally

different than Photo appearing on the Aadhar Card. The

signature appearing on the said Power of Attorney also does

not prima facie tally with the original signature of the

brother of the complainant Ramdas Peswani, which appears

on the original sale deed dated 21.01.2011 when he had

purchased the said land from Kumar Omprakash Rohra.


6]         Perusal of the investigation papers further show

that sale deed dated 18.05.2022 bearing photographs of

Ramdas is a different person executing sale deed in favour

of the applicant Mahendra Rajput, who is shown to be a

purchaser of the said property. The photograph and

signatures does not tally with the original photographs and

signatures appearing in sale deed dated 21.01.2011 where

deceased brother Ramdas has purchased the land from one
                              7
                                                    1803.24ABA

Kumar Omprakash Vohra.


7]          The   death    certificate   obtained     by   the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation

shows that the date of death of the brother of the

complainant Ramdas as 06.04.2025. Thus, it appears that

even the death certificate is manufactured by the applicant

– Mahendra Rajput to somehow grab the property of the

deceased Ramdas Peswani.


8]          The station diary entry recorded by the Police

shows that the applicant has failed to remain present before

the Investigating Officer even after notice was issued by the

Investigating Officer to the present applicant to attend and

co-operate the investigation.     The offence is serious in

nature where the applicant is alleged to have prepared

bogus documents with an intention to commit forgery and

cheating so as to grab property belonging to the

complainant’s brother. Taking into consideration gravity of

the offence, and the applicants failure to co-operate with

the investigation as directed vide order dated 22.10.2024, I
                             8
                                                1803.24ABA

am not inclined to exercise discretion vested under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Anticipatory Bail

Application is hereby rejected.


9]          Needless to mention here that the interim

protection granted vide order dated 22.10.2024 stands

vacated.


10]         The application for assist the P.P. is also

disposed of accordingly.



                                  [MEHROZ K. PATHAN]
                                        JUDGE
DDC