Bombay High Court
BHAGWAT VISHWANATH CHAUDAHRIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to interim bail subject to conditions and disposed of the anticipatory bail application in accordance with the earlier order.
Summary
The applicant, Bhagwat Vishwanath Chaudhari, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with FIR No. 0478/2024 alleging offences of forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy under various sections of the IPC. The Single Judge had earlier granted interim bail subject to conditions, noting that the applicant’s role differed from a co‑accused who was not a partner in the firm at the time of the disputed transaction. The State argued that serious allegations of forgery and fabrication remained under investigation and that no indulgence should be shown. The Court examined the FIR, found no specific allegation of impersonation of the vendors, and held that the applicant had made out a case for interim relief while the investigation proceeded. Consequently, the Court affirmed the interim bail order and disposed of the anticipatory bail application in terms of the earlier order.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged offences under the IPC.
- Whether the interim bail previously granted should be continued pending further investigation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- IPC offences
- forgery
- interim relief
- investigation
- partnership firm
Judgment
903-ABA-1966-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1966 OF 2024
Bhagwat Vishwanath Chaudhari …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Ms. Simran Raut i/b. Ms. Vrushali Maindad, for the Applicant.
Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Mundhe, API, attached to Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune,
present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 8th JANUARY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Ms. Simran Raut, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.
2. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection
with C.R. No.478 of 2024 registered with Hinjawadi Police Station,
Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468,
469, 471, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Page 1
Sonali
903-ABA-1966-2024.DOC
3. A learned Single Judge by detailed order dated 2 nd August
2024 granted interim protection. The said order dated 2 nd August
2024 reads as under:
“1. Heard, Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned counsel
for the applicant, Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for
the State as well as Mr. Sachin Tombare, learned
counsel having instructions to appear on behalf of
the first informant.
2. In the present case, one of the co-accused persons
i.e. Vaishali Jayprakash Pawar was granted
anticipatory bail by this Court by an order dated
16th July, 2024 in Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1861 of 2024.
3. Although, the said order was referred to by the
learned counsel for the applicant, but this Court
finds substance in the contention raised by learned
APP that in the facts of the present case, the
applicant cannot claim parity with the said co-
accused person, for the reason that one of the
factors that impressed this Court was that the co-
accused was not even a partner in the partnership
firm when the subject transaction was undertaken.
4. The applicant is one of the accused persons in
First Information Report No.0478 of 2024 dated
12th April, 2024, registered at Police Station
Hinjwadi, District Pimpri-Chinchwad, for the
offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471
and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC).
Page 2
Sonali
903-ABA-1966-2024.DOC
5. The informant claims that the accused persons
have committed the aforesaid offences on the basis
that when he went to apply for occupancy
certificate after completion of construction
undertaken on a particular land, he came to know
that the land itself had been sold to certain third
parties about which he was unaware. It is the case
of the informant that the development rights
pertaining to the said land were given by the
original owners i.e. Mrunalkant Datta and
Ashishkumar Kar (hereinafter referred to as the
vendors) to one Mr. Mane and immediately
thereafter the said Mr. Mane gave the development
rights in favour of the informant, way back in the
year 2006. It is further alleged that the manner in
which consideration was exchanged for the
transaction that took place in the year 2018,
whereby the land was ostensibly sold to the
partnership firm of which the applicant is a partner,
gave raise to suspicion. It is further claimed by the
informant that the subsequent sale in favour of the
co-accused persons in the year 2023, also reveals
the involvement of all the accused persons in the
aforementioned offences.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the transaction that was executed by the
vendors in favour of the aforesaid firm, of which the
applicant is a partner, in the year 2018 by way of
registered document for which valuable
consideration was given. Subsequently, the firm sold
the land to subsequent purchasers i.e. co-accused
Nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that the applicant had
no reason to believe that the informant had any
rights in the said land and therefore, the ingredients
of the alleged offences are not made out. Only mere
allegations are made about forgery and fabrication,
for which there is no material with the Investigating
Authority. The applicant is ready to cooperate with
the investigation.
Page 3
Sonali
903-ABA-1966-2024.DOC
7. On the other hand, learned APP submits that
statement of the one of the vendors could be
recorded but he did not divulge anything about the
transaction with the firm, of which the applicant is
a partner and that the other vendor could not be
traced. It is submitted that specific allegations
pertaining to forgery and fabrication have been
made and since the investigation is still on going,
no indulgence may be shown to the applicant.
8. The learned counsel having instructions to
appear for the first informant supported the
submissions made by the learned APP and sought to
argue that the document executed in favour of the
aforesaid firm in the year 2018, is based on
impersonation of the aforesaid vendors.
9. This Court has considered the submissions in the
light of the material made available to this Court. A
perusal of the statement of the informant, which led
to registration of the FIR, shows that there is not
even a hint of an allegation of impersonation of the
vendors when the document was executed in favour
of the aforesaid firm in the year 2018. Allegations
have indeed been made about forgery and
fabrication of certain documents when the
registered documents were executed in the year
2018 and 2023.
10. This Court is of the opinion that the nature of
allegations made by the informant would indicate
that if at all the allegations are to be believed the
involvement of the vendors, also comes to the fore.
Admittedly the vendors are not made accused
persons. There is no specific allegation about
impersonation of the vendors when the document
was executed in the year 2018. The allegations
pertaining to the under valuation of the property
Page 4
Sonali
903-ABA-1966-2024.DOC
are not specifically made in the statement of the
informant, which led to registration of the FIR.
11. In such a situation, this Court is of the opinion
that the learned APP would have to go through the
investigation papers in detail to assist this Court on
the next date for comprehensively understanding
the alleged role of the applicant in the present case.
In the meanwhile, the applicant has made out a
case for granting interim relief.
12. In view of the above, there shall be interim
order as follows :
(A) Till the next date of listing, in the event the
applicant is arrested in connection with FIR
No.0478 of 2024 dated 12th April, 2024,
registered at Police Station Hinjwadi, District
Pimpri-Chinchwad, for the offences under
Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , he
shall be released on bail, on furnishing PR
Bond of 50,000/- and one or ₹ two sureties in
the like amount.
(B) The applicant shall remain present before
the Investigating Officer on 05th August, 2024
between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon and
thereafter as and when called by the
Investigating Officer.
(C) The applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence in any manner. He shall not influence
the informant, witnesses or any other persons
concerned with the case.
6. Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid
conditions may result in this order being cancelled.
Page 5
Sonali
903-ABA-1966-2024.DOC
7. List the application for further consideration on
02 nd September, 2024, “High on Board.””
4. Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP submits that the investigation
is almost complete and the chargesheet will be filed shortly. There
is nothing on record to show that the interim protection granted by
a learned Single Judge by the said order dated 2 nd August 2024 is
misused.
5. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of
in terms of the order dated 2nd August 2024.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.01.08
18:23:30
+0530
Page 6
Sonali
Checking your session…