NARSIMHA VITTHALRAO DESHPANDE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                 -1-
                                                     aba1941.25.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1941 OF 2025 WITH
            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4222 OF 2025

1.    Narsimha s/o Vithalrao Deshpande

2.    Rajesh s/o Laxman Deshmane

3.    Rahul s/o Sahebrao Navture

4.    Niranjan s/o Madhukarappa Sangekar        .. Applicants

versus

The State of Maharashtra                        .. Respondent

Mr. B. P. Pande, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.
Mr. Naresh Thacker a/w Mr. A. S. Barlota, Mr. Sairam Subramaniam
and Ms. Saloni Shah, Advocates for the informant.

                           CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                      RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :


1.       Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

436/2025 registered with MIDC CIDCO Police Station, District

Chhtrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under

Sections 3(5), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
                                 -2-
                                                       aba1941.25.odt

2.    Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned APP and

learned Counsel for the informant.



3.    Informant Gopal Trilokchand Agrawal, is a director and

authorized representative in Riddhi Cotex Pvt. Ltd. and Rishi Fibers

Pvt. Ltd., as well as a partner and authorized representative in Siddhi

Fibers and Ramanuj Cotton Corporation, operating a pan-India

cotton trading business     through brokers.       According to the

informant, co-accused Sanjay Phoke, initially worked as a broker and

was engaged to manage land purchase and sale transactions on a

commission basis. In 2018-2019, said Sanjay introduced co-accused

Raju Mansing Rathod as an individual handling large-scale real

estate transactions.     Consequently, they were entrusted with

overseeing the purchase and sale of the informant’s landed

properties. It is further claimed that in 2020, the informant and the

co-accused formed a partnership entity named Ramanuj Ventures,

with the objective of undertaking real estate transactions, land

development, and construction. In this partnership, the informant

held 50% shareholding, while co-accused Raju and Sanjay each held

25%. By March 2024, the total capital invested in the firm stood at

Rs. 8,61,18,606/-, of which co-accused Sanjay had contributed
                                    -3-
                                                    aba1941.25.odt

Rs.81,25,000/-     and     co-accused     Raju   had    contributed

Rs. 30,25,000/-.



4.    In September 2020, Mr. Mansur Dalal informed the informant

that Vascon Engineers Ltd., Pune, intended to sell two of its

subsidiary companies namely marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd. And

Almet Corporation Ltd., both situated at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

As both properties, were located in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, the

informant desired to purchase them for business purposes through

Siddhi Fibers and Ramanuj Ventures, and accordingly, sent the co-

accused to inspect the premises and operations of the aforesaid

companies.    They subsequently reported that the properties were

viable and in suitable condition.



5.    In October 2020, the informant visited the office of Vascon

Engineers Ltd. And met director Mr. Vasudevan Murthy, his son

Mr. Siddharth Vasudevan Murthy, and other officials including

Mr. Somnath Biswas, Mr. S. P. Nair and Mr. Mansur Dalal, giving

formal willingness to purchase the said subsidiary companies. It was

mutually agreed that Siddhi Fibers, a partnership firm under the

informant’s ownership, would acquire Almet Corporation Ltd., while
                                -4-
                                                      aba1941.25.odt

Balaji builders and Developers, a partnership firm under the control

of the co-accused, would acquire Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd. This

decision was formally communicated to Vascon Engineers Ltd. by the

co-accused, and the total consideration for the acquisition of both

subsidiary companies was agreed upon at Rs.30,81,00,000/-,

pursuant to which a term sheet was executed.



6.    Following the execution of the term sheet in October 2020, co-

accused stated that since Balaji Builders & Developers lacked

sufficient financial capacity, the transaction would instead be

executed through the newly formed partnership firm, Ramanuj

Ventures.      In February 2021, a draft share transfer agreement

allocated 50% shares of Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd to the

informant to 25% each to co-accused Raju and Sanjay, while 100%

rights to Almet Corporation Ltd. were to be assigned to Siddhi Fibers.

Mr. Mansoor Dalal reconfirmed this share distribution via email in

May 2023, though the original agreement remained valued at Rs.

30.81 Crore.



7.    In September 2022, funds were remitted via RTGS from Yashas

Global to MIDC for land subdivision and conversion charges,
                                 -5-
                                                       aba1941.25.odt

including Rs. 2,85,88,663/- for Almet Corporation Ltd. and Rs.

1,01,08,701/- for Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd.        On 12.05.2023,

Vascon Engineers Ltd. confirmed receipt of Rs. 13.39 Crore from

Ramanuj Ventures, noting that Rs. 1,01,08,701/0 of this sum had

been utilized on 23.01.2021 for dividing Plot No. F-1/2. Out of the

total consideration, Rs. 1.53 Crore was funded by Siddhi Fibers, Rs.

55 Lakh was collected from clients, and Rs. 11.31 Crore was

transferred via specified RTGS and cheques from Ramanuj Ventures’

bank account to Vascon Engineers Ltd.



8.    During the project, the co-accused promised to sell plots

through Marathwada Realtors, return the money belonging to Vascon

Engineers, and take the property in their own names.         They then

began selling plots on the land measuring 16,760.05 sq. m. and

collected about Rs. 12.45 Crore as advance money, which was

deposited into the account of Ramanuj Ventures. On 20.01.2025, the

co-accused and Applicant Nair sent an SBI Bank NOC for Vascon

Engineers to the informant’s phone.      When the informant went to

meet Applicant Nair regarding this on 23.01.2025, the meeting could

not take place and thereafter informant fell seriously ill. This medical

emergency led to hospital treatments followed by strict bed rest at
                                 -6-
                                                       aba1941.25.odt

home in February 2025. Taking unfair advantage of this illness and

absence, the co-accused acted behind the informant’s back, created

fake documents, removed the informant from their official position

and secretly transferred 100% of the partnership of Marathwada

Realtors into their own names on 28.03.2025, completely violating

the terms of their registered partnership agreement.



9.    In May 2025, upon the informant questioning the status of

land registrations, the accused persons offered a false assurance,

claiming that 100% of the shareholding in Marathwada Raltors and

Almet Corporation had been transferred to their names strictly as a

temporary measure to alleviate the informant’s operational burdens

during his illness, alongside a false promise of rendering a full

account later.     Despite prior valid agreements vesting complete

ownership of Almet Corporation including Plot No. F-1/1          in the

informant,   the    accused   surreptitiously   usurped    the   entire

shareholding of both entities. To back their actions, they artificially

inflated the total transaction value to Rs. 9 Crore penalty for delayed

SBI Bank NOCs, whereas Vascon Company Ltd. had officially

reported the actual sale consideration to the BSE and NSE on

31.03.2025 as Rs. 30.81 Crore.
                                     -7-
                                                              aba1941.25.odt

10.     To consummate this illegal takeover, the co-accused forged the

informant’s signatures to cancel an earlier Share Transfer Agreement

from February 2021, replacing it with backdated documents executed

on 28.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. Following this fraudulent transfer,

the co-accused proceeded to develop and sell lands belonging to

Marathwada Realtors while routing the resulting sale proceeds

through Ramanuj Venture. Finally, the co-accused, acting in active

connivance with bank authorities, used forged signatures to secretly

operate and misappropriate funds from the partnership account of

Ramanuj Ventures. Therefore, the present First Information Report

came to be filed.



11.     During the course of investigation, the investigating agency

found    involvement    of    the   officers/employees   of    The    Cosmos

Cooperative Bank Limited in the crime in question and as such, they

were arrayed as accused.



12.     Learned     Counsel   for   the    Applicants   submits      that   the

Applicants are the employees of the bank and they have no concern

with the dispute between the informant and other accused persons.

It is his submission that in discharge of duty as employee of the
                                 -8-
                                                      aba1941.25.odt

bank, the cheques which were issued by the partnership firm under

signatures of all three partners were honoured. It is his submission

that non-appearance of signature of one of the partners on the RTGS

form does not make any difference with regard to obligation of the

bank to clear the cheque which is signed by all partners. It is his

submission that now, informant can’t be allowed to deny that when

cheques are duly honoured, statements of employees of the bank

with regard to the effect of non-appearance of signature of the

informant Gopal, the said statements are being claimed to have been

obtained by the police under coercion. It is his submission that there

is absolutely no evidence to indicate involvement of present

Applicants in the crime or they having been benefited by the same

and for want of any evidence to show they being beneficiaries of the

crime, can’t be denied bail. He further submits that by order dated

11.11.2025, liberty of the Applicants was protected and Applicants

were directed to cause appearance before the Investigating Officer,

which they have done. It is his submission that since the Applicants

have already cooperated in the investigation and as nothing is to be

recovered from them, their custodial interrogation is not necessary.
                                 -9-
                                                       aba1941.25.odt

13.   Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed

grant of any relief to the Applicants by referring to the allegations in

the First Information Report so also statements of the concerned

employees recorded during the course of inquiry.            It is their

submission that the said statements cannot be ignored as being

recorded before the employees were arrayed as accused. According to

them, having regard to the nature of allegations against the present

Applicants, their collusion with co-accused and involvement in the

crime is apparent.



14.   Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report does not

indicate any allegation against the bank officers / employees in

respect of the crime in question. This seems to be a case wherein

allegations are sought to be made on the basis           of statements

recorded during the course of investigation which are absent in the

First Information Report.     As observed by this Court, the First

Information Reports in Crime Nos. 0436/2025 and 0752/2025 are

lodged by the informant who are brothers and partners in Siddhi

Fibers. The First Information Reports make vague allegations with

regard to fabrication of record by co-accused muchless specific case

of signature on cheque being forged. There is no specific allegation
                                 - 10 -
                                                      aba1941.25.odt

against the present Applicants or employees of the bank of being in

collusion with the co-accused for the purpose of realisation of

cheques which are now claimed to be not signed by the informant.



15.   As far as present Applicants are concerned, admittedly, in the

capacity of officers / employees of the bank, cheques in question were

cleared. Even if it is accepted that in one of the RTGS form signature

of third partner is not appearing, it does not become an offence of

fabrication of record or forging signature of informant. In any case,

the cheques in question were cleared long back hence, it may not be

now open for the informant to simply deny signature on the cheque

and in absence of any supporting material, the Court is not expected

to accept the said allegation.   If such unsupported allegations are

accepted it would lead to permitting parties to dispute their own

signatures at later point of time when dispute occurs between them.



16.   Admittedly, the entire record including the alleged cheques and

RTGS forms are with the bank and as such nothing is to be seized at

the instance of present Applicants. A specific query was made to the

learned APP as to whether there is any evidence to indicate that the

Applicants are the beneficiaries of the crime.      On the basis of
                                       - 11 -
                                                                aba1941.25.odt

investigation papers so also on obtaining instructions from the

Investigating Officer, who was present in the Court, he is unable to

show any evidence to indicate that Applicants are benefited by alleged

crime.



17.   By order dated 11.11.2025, liberty of the Applicants was

protected and they were directed to appear before the Investigating

Officer.    The        Investigating   Officer    was     directed   to   furnish

questionnaire     to     the   Applicants       and   co-accused.     The    said

questionnaire was responded by them.                  Thus, this is not a case

wherein the Applicants have not cooperated in the investigation or

that they have misused liberty.             This Court, therefore, finds no

justification not to confirm the interim relief. Accordingly, application

is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 11.11.2025 except

Clause No. (B).



18.   Needless to state that the above observations are limited to the

extent of this application and the Trial Court shall not get influenced

by the same.
                            - 12 -
                                                 aba1941.25.odt

19.   Pending application, if any, does not survive and stands

disposed of.



                                           ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb