Bombay High Court

PRAVIN BHAGWANRAO RAKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: MEHROZ K PATHAN

Holding

The anticipatory bail applications are allowed.

Summary

The applicants, practising advocates, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0544 of 2025 alleging fraud in land‑acquisition arbitration orders. The prosecution alleged that the advocates facilitated back‑dated arbitration awards, leading to an inflated compensation of Rs. 310.20 crore and misappropriation of Rs. 73 crore. The advocates contended that they merely represented clients, that the arbitration orders were genuine, and that the FIR was filed in retaliation for complaints they had made against government officials. The court examined the prima facie material, noted the applicants' compliance with earlier interim orders, and found no necessity for custodial interrogation. Considering the lack of concrete evidence linking the advocates to the forgery and their cooperation with the investigation, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether there is a prima facie case against the advocate‑applicants sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation.
Whether the applicants' compliance with interim orders and lack of criminal antecedents warrant the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 14, 34
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 198, 199, 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(4), 61
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13, 7

Subjects

anticipatory bail
land acquisition
arbitration fraud
forgery
public funds
corruption
legal professional
investigation
bail conditions

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:16185

ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2243 OF 2025

Shahadeo Mahadeo Nannaware
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
…
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2256 OF 2025

Subhash Guruling Pisure
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2302 OF 2025

Pravin Bhagwanrao Rakh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…
AND
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2026

Mrigesh Dinkarrao Narwadkar
(Ref. As Narwadkar in FIR)
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…

• Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant in ABA No. 2243 of
2025
• Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. Vishal
Arjun Chavan, Advocate for Applicant in ABA No. 2256 of
2025
• Mr. R. G. Hange, Advocate for Applicant in ABA No. 2302 of
2025
• Mr. Kulkarni Mukul S., Advocate for Applicant in ABA No. 61
of 2026
• Mr. A. B. Girase, Public Prosecutor for Respondents – State
…

Jhs/ 1/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 08.04.2026

PER COURT :

1. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 61 of 2026 is not on board.

Upon mentioning, taken on board.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for

the respondent-State.

3. The applicants have approached this Court apprehending

arrest in connection with FIR No. 0544 of 2025, dated 19.11.2025,

registered at Shivajinagar Police Station, Taluka and District Beed.

The FIR alleges offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 14 and 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and Sections 318(4), 316(5),

338, 336(3), 340(2), 198, 199, 316(2), 61, and 351(4) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is serving

as Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Beed. Pursuant to a letter

issued by the District Collector, Beed dated 18.11.2025, and based on

the findings of an Enquiry Committee, it was revealed that serious

irregularities and large-scale fraud had been committed in land

acquisition compensation proceedings, particularly those pertaining

Jhs/ 2/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

to National Highways projects. As per the National Highways Act,

1956, the Land Acquisition Officer determines the compensation

amount for acquired land, and in case of dissatisfaction, the

landholder may seek enhancement by approaching the Arbitrator, i.e.,

the District Collector.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that during the relevant period,

especially between 01.03.2025 and 17.04.2025, a systematic

manipulation of arbitration proceedings was carried out. After the

transfer of the then District Collector on 22.04.2025 and prior to the

assumption of charge by the new Collector on 24.04.2025, several

arbitration orders were fraudulently prepared by using old dates and

by misusing the name, designation, and signature of the former

Collector. These fabricated orders were processed through the Land

Acquisition Coordination Branch, which is responsible for

maintaining records, issuing notices, and forwarding arbitration

matters. It is alleged that applications for enhanced compensation

were falsely shown as processed, notices were purportedly issued to

concerned parties including NHAI, and orders granting enhanced

compensation were created without actual hearings or presence of

the parties. The preliminary enquiry dated 01.03.2025 revealed

serious irregularities in as many as 154 cases, including issuance of

orders without outward numbers, use of backdated documents, and

Jhs/ 3/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

passing of orders without conducting hearings. Notably, on

17.04.2025, around 50 orders were issued in a single day without the

presence of concerned parties, which raises grave suspicion.

6. It was further revealed that the original compensation amount

of Rs. 68.58 crore was fraudulently enhanced to Rs. 310.20 crore, out

of which approximately Rs. 73 crore was disbursed. The enquiry

concluded that fake arbitration orders were generated and used to

siphon off government funds, thereby misleading the competent

authority and causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer. During

the course of enquiry, 10 persons, including the present applicants,

were identified as being primarily responsible for the said fraudulent

activities. It is alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of

their common intention, prepared forged documents, facilitated

illegal disbursement of compensation amounts, and received

commissions from the misappropriated funds, thereby embezzling

huge amount of public money.

7. In view of the aforesaid serious irregularities, the magnitude of

the fraud, and the findings of the enquiry committee, the present FIR

bearing No. 0544 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025 came to be registered at

Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed, against the accused persons,

including the present applicants.

Jhs/ 4/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants

have been falsely implicated in the present crime with an intention to

harass them, as they are practicing advocates. The applicants are

falsely alleged to have prepared backdated forged orders bearing the

signature of the arbitrator and thereby abetting the commission of

the offence.

9. The applicants are practicing advocates in land acquisition

matters. The awards were passed by the competent authority and

compensation was paid to the landowners whose lands were

acquired. The compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition

Officer was accepted by the landowners under protest, and thereafter

filed arbitration applications before the Arbitrator. It is not the

allegation of the prosecution that no such arbitration applications

were filed by the advocates for the landowners. However, the

allegation pertains only to the passing of forged orders on a backdate,

by portraying the same as having been passed on a particular date on

which the arbitrator is alleged to have put his signature after his

retirement. The allegation against the applicants is that, being

practicing advocates, they facilitated the obtaining of such backdated

orders/awards passed by the arbitrator.

10. The present applicants, being practicing advocates, have filed

arbitration applications before the Collector, Beed, which is evident

Jhs/ 5/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

from the roznama of each such arbitration proceeding. It is submitted

that the judgments/awards were passed by the arbitrator with his

signatures on each page. The certified copies were issued within a

period of 1 to 7 days from the date of the judgment, and therefore,

there was no question of any backdated signatures, as alleged by the

prosecution. It is further submitted that there is no question of the

applicants putting any signatures on the alleged backdated awards

passed by the arbitrator. The arbitrator was transferred on

22.04.2025.

11. Since the applicant advocates had filed complaints before the

Collector against the Deputy Collector, Dhumal, regarding the

hindrances created in the smooth functioning of advocates in

securing relief for their clients in respect of enhanced awards passed

by the arbitrator, the present FIR has been lodged against the

applicants with an intention to wreak vengeance.

12. That the applicants had also filed complaints against the Senior

Clerk, Sanjay Hange, and Contact Clerk, Avinash Chauhan, regarding

their misconduct. The said complaints were pending for disposal and

were also published on the website of the Collector. It is submitted

that the Collector, being aggrieved by such complaints made by the

applicant advocates, has caused the present FIR to be registered. It is

further submitted that if the arbitral awards are found to be not

Jhs/ 6/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

genuine, the same can be set aside by filing appropriate applications

under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

13. It is further submitted that, interestingly, the officer who is

alleged to have signed the said awards on prior dates before his

transfer has not been made an accused in the present crime. The

enquiry committee has not recorded the statement of the arbitrator,

namely Avinash Pathak, who was working as Deputy Collector and

acted as an arbitrator. The said arbitrator has also not been arrested

till date.

14. The learned counsel further submits that this Court, by order

dated 23.12.2025 (in ABA Nos. 2243 of 2025, 2256 of 2025, and

2302 of 2025) and by order dated 14.01.2026 (in ABA No. 61 of

2026), granted interim protection to the present applicants, subject

to the condition that they shall attend the police station as and when

called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with the

investigation. It is submitted that the applicants have complied with

the said interim orders and have not violated any of the conditions

imposed. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. The

applicants are practicing advocates and, if arrested, the same would

cause serious damage to their reputation and image in society. The

applicants have merely performed acts in the course of their

professional duties, and are not been involved in any offence earlier,

Jhs/ 7/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

and have a clean record. No recovery is required to be effected from

the applicant advocates, and therefore, the applicants may be

released on bail.

15. As against this, the learned Public Prosecutor has strongly

opposed the present applications and submitted that there is a strong

prima facie case against the applicants, as their names have surfaced

during the course of enquiry and their involvement is revealed from

the material collected during investigation. It is submitted that from

the mobile phone seized from co-accused Trimbak, it has transpired

that the present applicant was in frequent contact with the said co-

accused and had made several calls to him, and was also in contact

with other accused persons namely Sanjay Hange and Shaikh Azhar,

which clearly indicates that all the accused were acting in concert

and were in continuous communication through WhatsApp messages

and voice calls, as reflected in the enquiry report. It is further

submitted that the applicant was handling arbitration matters and is

a practicing advocate for NHAI, and during the enquiry it has been

revealed that he was in touch with office staff as well as absconding

accused persons, and had even pressurized government servants to

prepare bogus arbitration awards. The learned APP further submitted

that the offence is of a very serious nature involving forgery of

government records and misappropriation of public funds to the tune

Jhs/ 8/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

of Rs. 73.4 crores, committed in a planned and systematic manner.

That custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for effective

investigation, particularly for obtaining voice samples, verification of

recorded conversations, and seizure of the applicant’s mobile phone,

and that crucial evidence is yet to be collected. It is also contended

that if the applicant is released on bail, there is a strong likelihood

that he will pressurize witnesses, tamper with prosecution evidence,

and may commit similar offences. It is further submitted that upon

discovery of the fraud, an enquiry committee was constituted and

during such enquiry the involvement of the present applicant was

revealed, which ultimately led to registration of the present crime.

Hence, it is prayed that the present Anticipatory Bail Applications be

rejected.

16. I have gone through the investigation papers made available by

the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Girase. Upon perusal of the same,

it appears that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this

Court, the applicants have attended the concerned police station and

have cooperated with the investigation.

17. The investigation papers further reveal that the statement of

the then arbitrator, namely Avinash Pathak, has not been recorded to

confirm whether the signatures on the awards allegedly signed by

him are after his transfer or before it. It is also noteworthy that the

Jhs/ 9/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

said officer has not been arraigned as an accused in the present

crime. The allegations in the FIR indicate that all the accused

persons, in furtherance of their common intention, prepared forged

and backdated documents by obtaining the signatures of the

arbitrator and thereby conspired to commit the alleged offence.

18. The preliminary enquiry conducted by the complainant

indicates that in about 154 cases decided between 01.03.2025 and

17.04.2025, awards were issued on earlier dates without assigning

outward numbers. It is further alleged that the original compensation

amount of Rs. 68.58 crores was enhanced to Rs. 310.20 crores on the

basis of such backdated awards, resulting in wrongful loss to the

Government exchequer. The enquiry committee has identified 10

persons, including the present applicants, as being primarily

responsible.

19. However, as against the present applicants, the material placed

on record prima facie indicates that the only circumstance relied

upon by the prosecution is their telephonic contact with the arrested

co-accused persons who are officials of Collector Office. The

applicants are practicing advocates, and in the normal course of their

professional duties, they are expected to remain in communication

with the officers of the Collector’s office where such proceedings are

conducted.

Jhs/ 10/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

20. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Deshmukh,

along with the learned counsel Mr. Salunke, that the present FIR may

be an outcome of prior complaints made by the advocates against the

office staff and the Deputy Collector regarding alleged irregularities

in the functioning of the office, cannot be completely ruled out at this

stage. However, these observations are prima facie in nature and are

made only for the purpose of deciding the present applications.

21. Be that as it may, It is an admitted position that the applicants

have complied with the interim protection granted by this Court and

have cooperated with the investigation. The learned Public

Prosecutor has fairly submitted that there is no violation of the

conditions imposed earlier. It also appears that the investigation,

insofar as the present applicants are concerned, is substantially

completed.

22. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the role attributed to the

applicants, the nature of evidence collected, and the fact that

custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary at this stage, I

am inclined to protect the applicants.

ORDER

i. The Anticipatory Bail Applications are allowed.
ii. The interim orders dated 23.12.2025 and 14.01.2026 are
hereby confirmed, subject to the following conditions:

Jhs/ 11/12
ABA NO. 2243 OF 2025

A) The applicants shall attend the concerned police
station and report to the Investigating Officer as and
when called, till filing of the charge-sheet.
B) The Applicants shall also cooperate with the
investigation.
C) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat, or promise to any prosecution
witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner.
D) The applicants shall furnish copies of his Aadhaar
Card and PAN Card to the Investigating Officer along
with the addresses and mobile numbers of two nearest
relatives.

23. Needless to state that a single violation of any of the aforesaid

conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the

anticipatory bail granted herein.

24. The observations made herein are prima facie and shall not

influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits.

25. The Anticipatory Bail Applications stand disposed of

accordingly.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )

Jhs/ 12/12

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…