VICKY MANOHAR LADGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                  907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2351 OF 2026
ARJUN
VITTHAL               Vicky Manohar Ladge                            …Applicant
KUDHEKAR                    Versus
Digitally signed by   The State of Maharashtra                       …Respondent
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.10
22:39:47 +0530                                    WITH
                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2992 OF 2026
                                                   IN
                              ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2351 OF 2026

                      Mohamed Nadeem Hidayatullah Khan               …Applicant

                      IN THE MATTER OF

                      Vicky Manohar Ladge                            …Applicant
                            Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra                       …Respondent


                      Ms. Shivani Kondekar a/w Vidya Doke & Siddhesh Galande, for the
                      Applicant in ABA/2351/2026.
                      Mr. Sharikh M. Khan a/w Bilal F. Shaikh, for the Complainant.
                      Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                      PSI Umesh Gutal, Taloja Police Station, Navi Mumbai, present.


                                          CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                          DATED:       09 SEPTEMBER 2026
                      PC:-


                      1.      Heard Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel appearing for the

                      Applicant, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, for the Respondent-State of

                      Maharashtra and Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the

                      Complainant/First Informant.




                                                     Page 1
                      Arjun
                                                  907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC




2.       By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the Applicant is

seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.205 of 2026

registered with Taloja Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the offences

punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340 and

3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.



3.       The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.2 of the

Order dated 4th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Panvel in Criminal Bail Application No.590 of

2026, which reads as under:


        “2.     In nut shell, the case of the prosecution is that
        the complainant and his brother are the owners of the
        S.No. 81/44/46/49/A/3 bearing 30 gunthas. In the
        month of March 2026, the complainant had gone to
        Talathi Office, Taluka Panvel to obtain 7/12 extract of
        the said property, wherein he was shocked to know that
        the said property is transferred in the name of Vilas
        Bhagwan Patil and Vicky Manohar Ladge by showing
        Mohammad Jamal Sherbaj Hidaytulla and Mohammad
        Nadim Sherbaj Hidaytulla to be the owners of the said
        property and the said documents was registered in the
        office of Sub-Registrar, Panvel vide sale deed
        No.183/2026, dated 05.02.2026 in the presence of two
        witness viz. Ganesh Anant Shelke and Kailas Balu Vele,
        thus law was set into motion against the applicant by
        lodging report with the Taloja police station for the
        above mentioned offences.”




                                  Page 2
Arjun
                                                     907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC




4.      It is the submission of Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel for the

Applicant, that the Applicant and the Co-Purchaser are business

partners and they purchased land admeasuring 30R, bearing

Survey No.81, Hissa No. 44/46/49/A/3, situated at Turbhe, Taluka

Panvel,    District   Raigad,   for      a   total    consideration    of

Rs.1,35,00,000/-. She submits that the Applicant thereafter came

to know that the persons who had sold the land had filed a

complaint and, therefore, they stopped the payment and filed a

complaint dated 6th May 2026 with the Senior Police Inspector,

Taloja Police Station, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. She submits

that the Applicant is not at all involved in the crime.



5.      On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, states that the

offence is very serious, as, instead of the original owners, fictitious

persons represented themselves to be the owners and executed a

registered Sale Deed. She submits that, out of the consideration of

Rs.1,35,00,000/-, it transpired during investigation that not a

single paisa has been paid by the present Applicant. She submits

that the offence is very serious and, therefore, custodial

interrogation is necessary.




                                Page 3
Arjun
                                                 907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC




6.      Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the First Informant,

submits that, in fact, the market price of the subject property is

more than Rs.10 Crores. Mr. Mohammad Jaman Sherbaz

Hidayatullah, Vendor No.1, is in jail since May 2025 and even till

date he is in jail. He submits that said Vendor No.1 could not have

executed the Sale Deed on 3rd May 2026. He submits that even

the Suit has been instituted in the fictitious names of the original

owners. A copy of the said Suit is annexed at Pages 87-94. It is

submitted that the verification has been made by the alleged

Plaintiff No.1-Mohammad Jaman Sherbaaz Hidayatulla, who is in

jail since May 2025 till date.



7.      Perusal of the record shows that a valuable property situated

at Turbhe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring 30R, has

been sold by a registered Sale Deed dated 3rd May 2026, by

showing the Co-Accused, Mr. Mohammad Jaman Sherbaaz

Hidayatulla and Mr. Mohammad Nadim Sherbaaz Hidayatullah, as

the vendors. The Co-Accused impersonated the original owners.

The Applicant is the purchaser along with one Vilas Bhagwan Patil.

The registered Sale Deed records that the aggregate amount of

Rs.1,35,00,000/- was paid in instalments from 12th March 2024 to




                                 Page 4
Arjun
                                                     907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC




28th April 2026. During the investigation, it transpired that

nothing has been paid as consideration by the Applicant and that

the details of cheque numbers and amounts were given merely to

show payment.



8.      It is significant to note that, although the Sale Deed is dated

3rd     February    2026,    cheques   dated   1st     April   2026   for

Rs.37,00,000/- and 28th April 2026 for Rs.30,00,000/- were

issued, which are subsequent to the date of the Sale Deed. The

Sale Deed, which is stated to have been executed on 3rd February

2026, records that possession of the land has been handed over.


9.      Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant relied on

the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Anand v. State of T.N. 1,

and more particularly on Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 thereof.

However, the facts of the said case are totally different. In that

case, the allegation was that a will was allegedly executed by the

father of the Complainant on 12th September 1988, however, no

such will had been executed.


10.     This is a case where Vendor No.1, Mohammad Jaman


1       2026 SCC OnLine SC 702




                                  Page 5
Arjun
                                                    907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC




Sherbaaz Hidayatulla, is admittedly in jail since May 2025 and the

said person, who is in jail, has allegedly executed Sale Deed dated

3rd February 2026.


11.     It is further significant to note that a Civil Suit has been filed

before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, bearing

S.C.S. No.189 of 2026, by the Co-Accused in the name of said

Mohammad Jaman Sherbaaz Hidayatulla, who is in jail and is a co-

owner. Allegedly verification has been made by the said Co-Owner

on 15th April 2026, who is in jail since May 2025 till date. Thus, it

is clear that the allegations are very serious.



12.     The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty v.

State of Maharashtra2, held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional

remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner. There

must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this

extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offences. It has

been further observed that the Court should be very cautious while

dealing with the applications for anticipatory bail as the grant of

interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases

may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the

2       2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489




                                  Page 6
Arjun
                                                  907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC




investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to

tampering or distraction of the evidence. The said observations of

the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case.



13.     Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant has also

relied on the decision of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj 3, and

more particularly on Paragraph Nos.25 and 26, wherein it has been

held that “forgery” and “fraud” are essentially matters of evidence

which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences

drawn from proved facts. However, the said decision has no

application to the present case.


14.     In any case, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made

out for grant of anticipatory bail.


15.     Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.


16.     As the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed, nothing

survives in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed

of.


                                            [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]


3       (2018) 7 SCC 581




                                   Page 7
Arjun