Bombay High Court
JITENDRA SUNDARDAS PANJABI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The court held that the matter is essentially a civil dispute and granted anticipatory bail to all applicants subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a batch of anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No.149 of 2025 alleging land‑grabbing and organised crime under Sections 111, 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicants argued that the controversy is fundamentally a civil dispute over title, partition and sale of land, citing the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and various historic land‑ownership orders. The State contended that the offences are serious, the accused might tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, and therefore bail should be denied. After examining the factual matrix, the court concluded that the pending civil suits and revenue proceedings indicate a civil nature of the dispute and that the allegations do not, on the face of them, constitute a grave criminal offence warranting denial of bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to all applicants with strict conditions and disposed of the interim applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of land‑grabbing and organised crime attract the provisions of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the dispute is essentially civil, relating to title, partition and sale of land, and therefore the criminal provisions are inapplicable.
- Whether Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be invoked to grant anticipatory bail in the present circumstances.
- Whether the applicants are likely to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or obstruct the investigation.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the court are sufficient to safeguard the investigation while granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111, 318(4), 61(2)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s. 44
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land grabbing
- organized crime
- civil dispute
- property partition
- Section 111 BNS
- Section 482 BNS
- Transfer of Property Act
- Maharashtra Inam Abolition Act
- revenue mutation
Judgment
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2718 OF 2025
Prakash Bhikamchan Chajjed …Applicant
Versus
Digitally
signed by
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date:
2026.03.20
19:44:13
+0530
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3764 OF 2025
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2718 OF 2025
Rahul Arora …Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Prakash Bhikamchan Chajjed …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2806 OF 2025
1. Kiran Bhalchandra Thatte
2. Uday Bhalchandra Thatte
3. Mahesh Ravindra Gadgil …Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2840 OF 2025
Abhijeet Narendra Kate …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Page 1
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2838 OF 2025
Sandeep Sahebrao Pawar …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2852 OF 2025
Moti Udharam Panjabi …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3880 OF 2025
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2852 OF 2025
Rahul Arora …Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Moti Udharam Panjabi …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2878 OF 2025
Raju Ram Panjabi …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4257 OF 2025
Page 2
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2878 OF 2025
Rahul Arora …Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Raju Ram Panjabi …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2877 OF 2025
1. Jitendra Sundardas Panjabi
2. Naresh Ramchandra Panjabi …Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4290 OF 2025
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2877 OF 2025
Rahul Arora …Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
1. Jitendra Sundardas Panjabi
2. Naresh Ramchandra Panjabi …Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Omkar R. Patil
i/b. Mr. Tukaram Shendge, for the Applicant in ABA/2852/2025
Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Minal Chandnani, for the
Applicant in ABA/2878/2025.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shekhar Jagtap i/b. J.
Shekhar Associates, for the Applicant in ABA/2718/2025.
Mr. Pranav Bhadeka, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rajesh Ranglani, for
Page 3
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
the Applicants in ABA/2877/2025.
Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w. Mr. Mohit Jagiasi and Ms. Khushboo
Goklani h/f. Mr. Monish Bhatia, for the Applicants in
ABA/2806/2025.
Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary, for the Applicants in ABA/2838/2025
and ABA/2840/2025.
Mr. Satish Maneshinde, Senior Advocate, Mr. Murlidhar Kumar, Mr.
Niranjan Mundargi, Mr. Sameer Pandit, Ms. Krina Gandhi, Ms.
Chandni Turakhiya i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co., for the First
Informant/Applicant/Respondent No.2.
Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent-State in
ABA/2718/2025 and ABA/2806/2025.
Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State in ABA/2840/2025
and ABA/2838/2025.
Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State in
ABA/2852/2025 and ABA/2878/2025.
Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent-State in
ABA/2877/2025.
Mr. Suhas Patil, API, EOW, Pune City, Pune, present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 12th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Kumbhkoni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Applicant/Accused No.4- Moti Udharam Panjabi (Anticipatory
Bail Application No.2852 of 2025), Mr. Desai, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Accused No.19-Raju Ram
Panjabi (Anticipatory Bail Application No.2878 of 2025), Mr.
Kadam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Applicant/Accused No.17-Prakash Bhikamchan Chajjed
(Anticipatory Bail Application No.2718 of 2025), Mr. Bhadeka,
Page 4
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Accused No.1-
Jitendra Sundardas Panjabi and the Applicant/Accused No.2-
Naresh Ramchandra Panjabi (Anticipatory Bail Application
No.2877 of 2025), Mr. Merchant, learned Counsel appearing for
the Applicants/Accused Nos.9 to 11- Kiran Bhalchandra Thatte,
Uday Bhalchandra Thatte and Mahesh Ravindra Gadgil
(Anticipatory Bail Application No.2806 of 2025), Ms. Chowdhary,
learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Accused No.19-
Sandeep Sahebrao Pawar (Anticipatory Bail Application No.2838
of 2025) and the Applicant/Accused No.18-Abhijeet Narendra Kate
(Anticipatory Bail Application No.2840 of 2025), Mr. Maneshinde,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the First Informant, Ms.
Mulekar, learned APP, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP, Ms. Newton,
learned APP and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State in respective Anticipatory Bail Applications.
2. These applications are filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail
in connection with C.R. No.149 of 2025 registered with Lashkar
Police Station, Pune City, Pune, for the offences punishable under
Page 5
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Sections 111, 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (“the BNS”).
3. The prosecution case as reflected in the statement of the
First Informant -Rahul Rajeev Arora is as follows:
Page 6
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Page 7
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Page 8
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Page 9
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Page 10
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
English translation of the same is as under:
“STATEMENT, Date 23.08.2025.
My name is Rahul Rajeev Arora, Age – 51 Years,
Occupation – Software Company, Residing at – 24
K. Sirona, Baner Hills, Pune, Mobile Phone No.
9820879914. E-mail ID – [email protected].
I along with my family stay at the aforesaid
address. I run a Software Company at Mumbai and
I do a Software Development Business through the
said Company. Today, I have remained present in
the Office of the Economic Offences Wing, situates
at the Office of Police Commissioner, Pune City. I
had filed my Complaint Application against Jitu
Panjabi, Raju Panjabi and 14 other persons for their
committing cheating on me. In connection with the
said Complaint Application, I state as under :-
In the year 1769, the Peshwa Government had
given as Inam the land admeasuring 36 Hectares
and 42 Are from the land bearing Survey No. 99,
situated at Village – Tathavade to one Narayan
Vishwanath Bhat (Thatte). In the year 1953, as per
the provisions of the Maharashtra Inam Abolition
Act, the Government took possession of the said
land and entered the name of the Government in
the Seven-Twelve Extract of the said land. In order
get the name of the Government that was entered
against the said land deleted and to get entered his
own name, one Narayan Laxman Thatte, heir of
said Narayan Vishwanath Bhat (Thatte) filed a Civil
Appeal-Suit bearing No. 188/1973 before the
Hon’ble District Sessions Court at Pune. On the
date 07.06.1974, the Hon’ble Sessions Court
decided the said matter in favour of Narayan
Laxman Thatte. The Government of Maharashtra
challenged the said decision by filing an appeal
bearing No. 919/1974 before the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court. Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court,
Page 11
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
on the date 02.07.1981, decided the said Appeal in
favour of Narayan Thatte. Pursuant to the said
Decision, the Government of Maharashtra entered
the name of Narayan Laxman Thatte and his family
members on the Seven–Twelve Extract, executed a
Possession Receipt, handed over the possession of
the said land to him.
My father by name Rajeev Hiralal Arora has
purchased the land admeasuring 34 Hectares and
35 Are, from out of the said land admeasuring 36
Hectares and 42 Are. Further, the 1 Anna share
from out of the said land has been purchased from
Janardan Ramchandra Agashe and his Family and
the Sale Deed in respect thereof has been got
registered in the Office of the Registrar, Haveli-13,
vide Instrument No. 1618/1988, dated 31.03.1988.
Narayan Thatte and his Family has given consent
thereto. Similarly, the remaining 15 Annas share
has been purchased from Narayan Laxman Thatte
and his Family and the Sale Deed in respect thereof
has been got registered in the Office of the
Registrar, Haveli-13, vide Instrument No.
1619/1988, dated 31.03.1988. Janardan Agashe
and his Family has given consent thereto. My
father has got the possession of the said land
immediately thereafter and by putting up a
compound around the said land, we have deputed
Security Guards at the said land.
In the year 2019, my father got entered my
name and also the names of my brother Rohit Arora
and my mother Punam Arora on the Seven-Twelve
Extract of the said land vide the Mutation Entry No.
6235. In the said land bearing Survey No. 99,
admeasuring 36 Hectares and 42 Are, the land
admeasuring 34 Hectares and 35 Are stands in the
name of my family. Similarly, the land admeasuring
1 Hectare and 20 Are stands in the names of Bhide
and Sukadikar and the land admeasuring 0.87
Hectares stands in the name of Mumbai-Pune
Highway Authority. As the Mumbai-Pune Highway
Page 12
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Authority has not got entered its name to the area
on its Seven-Twelve Extract, the names of Narayan
Thatte and his heirs, thus in all 17 persons, stand
entered against the area admeasuring 0.87
Hectares. The area admeasuring 1.20 Hectares of
Bhide and Sukadikar has been purchased by
Vardhaman Developers and as of today, its name
stands entered in the Seven-Twelve Extract of the
said land.
In the year 1995, Indirabai Waman Thatte and
her family members told us that they have two-third
share in the land that has been purchased by us and
in order to get their said share, they filed a Civil
Suit bearing No. 54/1998 before the Civil Court. In
the matter of the said Suit, when the record
available with the Government was perused in
connection with the documents submitted by said
Indirabai Thatte, an Order was found having passed
by the British Era Assistant Inam Commissioner and
Inam Commissioner, rejecting the right of Narayan
Thatte, great-grandfather of Waman Thatte,
husband of Indirabai Thatte , as Adopted Son of one
Nilkanth Shastri, in the year 1859 and 1860 for
want of evidence. We have submitted our say in
the said Suit before the Hon’ble Civil Suit.
Thereafter, one Nagesh Thatte filed an application
in the said Suit and claimed therein that he also had
his one third share therein. Thereafter, in the said
matter it was argued that Indirabai Thatte had her
one third share, Nagesh Thatte had his one third
share and we have our one third share. In fact,
Indirabai and Nagesh Thatte do not have any
connection of whatsoever nature with the said land.
Indirabai and Nagesh Thatte have filed their Civil
Suits before the Civil Court for creating a litigation
in the said land. The hearing into the said Suit is
still pending before the Civil Court at Shivaji Nagar.
As the said Suit remained pending for a number of
years and despite the Claimants having no right to
the said land, we decided to arrive at a settlement
Page 13
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
and we started our negotiations accordingly.
During the course of said negotiations, it was
decided to pay a sum of Rs. 55 Crores to Nagesh
Thatte and his family members.
In the meantime, a building project of Rama
Group (Elephanta and Rama Synergy) under the
name ‘Metro Life’ was underway on the land located
adjacent to the abovementioned land and as the
said Group needed more land for its said project, it
gave us an offer of purchasing the land
admeasuring 05 Acres from out of our land. In
order to complete the said transaction, a meeting
with Jitendra Panjabi from said Rama Group was
held on the date 19.02.2021 at his house at
Bungalow No. 311, Sindh Society, Aundh, Pune.
Thereafter, another meetings were held on the dates
viz. on 02.09.2021 at Fab Cafe, Aundh and on the
date 06.09.2021, at the place of my Partner by
name Lalitkumar Jain at 2409, East Street, Camp,
Pune. During the course of said meetings that held
between us, it was agreed to sell the 05 Acres land
for a sum of Rs.55 Crores. In connection with the
said transaction, I informed Jitendra Panjabi and
Naresh Panjabi about the Suits that were going on
between Nagesh Thatte and his family members
and us in respect of the aforesaid land standing in
our name and the settlement talks between us. I
also informed them that, the said dispute will be
settled by paying the money that will be received
from the aforesaid transaction, to Nagesh Thatte.
The Minutes of the Meetings have been prepared
accordingly, but the same have not yet been signed.
Similarly, we have exchanged between ourselves the
information in relation to the said transaction
through WhatsApp and E-mail.
Even while our Civil Suit No. 54/1998 was
pending before the Civil Court at Shivaji Nagar,
Pune, one Kiran Thatte, Uday Thatte and Mahesh
Gadgil, with an intention to grab the land, hatched
a criminal conspiracy, entered into with Jitendra
Page 14
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Panjabi and Rama Panjabiof Elephanta Realty
(Rama Group), a transaction in respect of the one-
third share in the land.
Thereafter, said Kiran Thatte, Uday Thatte and
Mahesh Gadgil, despite having the Suit filed for one
third share remained pending before the Civil Court
and having no connection of whatsoever nature
with the land and having their names not even
entered on the Seven-Twelve Extract, entered into
an instrument of Article of Agreement with Raju
Ram Panjabi and Moti Udharam Panjabi of
Elephanta Realty (Rama Group), got the same
notarised from Advocate Kailas Muralidhan Jadhav,
from Pimpri Chinchwad, on the date 20.03.2023 at
Sr. No. 223/2025 (? 2023) and sold the land for a
sum of Rs. 96 Crores and 25 Lacs. In the said
transaction, an amount of Rs. 05 Crores has been
paid in advance.
In connection with the aforesaid land
transaction entered into with Nagesh Thatte; Raju
Panjabi and Moti Panjabi from Elephanta Realty
entered into an instrument with the persons by
names (1) Nilesh Shrikant Joshi, (2) Dattatray
Dnyanoba Pingal, (3) Laxman Pinalmal Kataria, (4)
Badal Balasaheb Ghaste, (5) Vishal Shantaram
Alhat and (6) Dhananjay Mukund Lele of criminal
tendency for getting entered the name of Nagesh
Thatte and his family on the Seven-Twelve Extract
of the land standing in our name in the Revenue
Records and also for taking possession of the said
land from us and got the said instrument notarised
from Advocate Mahendra Bhimrao Kakad, from
Haveli, District – Pune on the date 06.04.2023 at Sr.
No. 543/2023. A total amount of Rs.35 Crores will
be paid as consideration to all six of them for
carrying out the said work and an amount of Rs.2
Crores from out of the said amount has been paid in
advance. While making a deal with Jitendra
Panjabi about selling my 05 Acres land, I had
informed him about the Civil Suit going on against
Page 15
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Nagesh Thatte. Even then he passed the said
information to Raju Panjabi and Moti Panjabi, his
Partners from Elephanta Realty, who, in turn,
hatched a criminal conspiracy, entered into an
instrument with the persons by names (1) Nilesh
Shrikant Joshi, (2) Dattatray Dnyanoba Pingal, (3)
Laxman Pinalmal Kataria, (4) Badal Balasaheb
Ghaste, (5) Vishal Shantaram Alhat and (6)
Dhananjay Mukund Lele for getting entered the
name of Nagesh Thatte and his family on the Seven-
Twelve Extract of the land standing in our name
and also for forcibly grabbing and taking away
possession of the aforesaid land standing in our
name from us and by creating a third party interest
in the land of our share valued at more than Rs. 200
Crores, caused us a financial loss.
Similarly, as the Mumbai-Pune Highway
Authority has not got entered its name on the
Seven-Twelve Extract of the land admeasuring 0.87
Hectares, the name of Narayan Thatte and his heirs,
thus in all 17 persons stand entered against the said
area. One Priyavanda Sushilkumar Marathe and
Shriram Sushilkumar Marathe whose names are
among those 17 other names entered against the
area admeasuring 0.87 Hectares, by making false
representations that the said 0.87 Hectares area
which is a part of the land of our share situates
adjacent to the land where the Project of
Vardhaman Developers is underway, entered into a
Deed of Agreement to Sell with Prakash Bhikachand
Chhajed of Vardhaman Group and got the same
registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Haveli
– 24, on the date 09.05.2024 being Instrument No.
11333/2024. By mentioning in the said instrument
that she is not in the possession of the said land and
that no Partition Deed has been executed, she has
entered into an M. O. U. with two persons by names
Abhijeet Narendra Kate and Sandeep Sahebrao
Pawar for getting done compliance in respect
thereof and has paid them a sum of Rs.1 Crore and
Page 16
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
20 Lakhs in lieu thereof. Similarly, they have
affixed signatures to the Deed of Agreement to Sell
executed by Priyavanda Sushilkumar Marathe as
Party Giving Consent. In order to confirm the said
transaction under the said instrument, Saumitra
Sushilkumar Marathe has executed a Deed of
Confirmation and has got the same registered in the
Office of the Sub Registrar, Haveli-24 on the date
17.05.2024 being an Instrument No.12037/2024.
The deal under the said transaction has been fixed
to an amount of Rs.12 Crores and 65 Lakhs. From
out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.80 Lakhs
has been paid in advance and it has been agreed to
pay the remaining amount after the land is
transferred to their name. Further, taking
disadvantage of the fact that the names on the
Seven-Twelve Extract have not been deleted,
Priyavanda Marathe and her two sons hatched a
criminal conspiracy with Prakash Chhajed from
Vardhaman Group and Abhijeet Kate and Sandeep
Pawar who have given their consent to the said
transaction and by showing false in the map of our
land that the said 0.87 Hectares land is a part of our
land and is situated adjacent to the land where the
project of Vardhaman Associates is underway,
executed an unlawful Deed of Agreement to Sell.
Sandeep Pawar and Badal Ghaste, providing
services to Elephanta Realty are old associates of
each other. Similarly, the Advocate of Nagesh
Thatte’s family and of Vardhaman Associates is one
and the same Advocate and his name is Advocate
Amol Patait. From this also, it is clearly seen that
they have hatched the criminal conspiracy with the
help of each other. Similarly, Advocate Purushottam
Kamthe of Vardhaman Developers and Advocate of
Priyavanda Marathe and Sandeep Pawar work
(together) in various matters and therefore, they all
have every information about the said land.
Further, the Nagesh Thatte’s family has made me
party in Suit No. 54/1998, however, it is nowhere
seen that they have made Vardhaman Developers as
Page 17
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
a Party. In the year 1985, Vishwanath Thatte sold
the land admeasuring 1.20 Are to Sukadikar –
Lakkar. Thereafter, said Sukadikar-Lakkar sold the
same to Bhide in the year 2007 and thereafter, in
the year 2018, Vadhaman Developers purchased the
same from Bhide, however, the signature of
Priyavanda Marathe does not appear anywhere in
the said Sale Deed in respect of the purchased land.
Moreover, Kiran Bhalchandra Thatte, Uday
Bhalchandra Thatte and Mahesh Ravindra Gadgil
have not registered any objection of whatsoever
nature in respect of the said land. The Vardhaman
Developers have constructed buildings on the said
land and have sold the flats and shops constructed
therein.
Thus, from the date 06.09.2021, till today, in
spite of the fact that Kiran Bhalchandra Thatte,
Uday Bhalchandra Thatte and Mahesh Ravindra
Gadgil have no connection of whatsoever nature
with our land and that the Suit in respect of the
same is pending before the Court of Law and that
no names have been mentioned on the Seven-
Twelve Extract, they entered into a transaction in
respect of the said land with Moti Udharam Panjabi,
Raju Ram Punjabi, Jitendra Sundardas Panjabiand
Naresh Ram Panjabiof Elephanta Realty (Rama
Group). Moreover, they engaged the persons by
names (1) Nilesh Shrikant Joshi, (2) Dattatray
Dnyanoba Pingal, (3) Laxman Pinalmal Kataria, (4)
Badal Balasaheb Ghaste, (5) Vishal Shantaram
Alhat and (6) Dhananjay Mukund Lele of criminal
tendency for taking possession of our land from us.
Similarly, by taking undue advantage of the fact that
their names have not been deleted from the Seven-
Twelve Extract, Priyavanda Sushilkumar Marathe,
Shriram Sushilkumar Marathe and Saumitra
Sushilkumar Marathe entered into a transaction of
selling the land with Prakash Bhikachand Chhajed
of Vardhaman Group and entrusted the work of
taking possession of the land to Abhijeet Narendra
Page 18
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Kate and Sandeep Sahebrao Pawar. All the above
named persons and other persons have colluded
with each other, have hatched a plot, prepared an
unlawful instruments and have made attempts to
grab my land and therefore, I have a lawful
complaint against them.
13. Action taken : Since the above information
reveals commission of offence(s), under section as
mentioned at Item No. 2 …….”
4. Mr. Kumbhkoni, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Bhadeka,
learned Senior Counsel who are appearing for the accused -
members of the Panjabi family raised the following contentions:
i. It is submitted that the entire dispute is of civil nature and
the same has been given colour of criminality. It is submitted
that Elephanta Realty LLP is a limited liability partnership
firm of which the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are the partners.
The said firm entered into Agreement for Sale dated 25 th
March 2025 with legal heirs and representatives of original
co-owner- Nagesh Thatte with respect to their 1/3 share
undivided share for consideration of Rs.96.25 crores out of
which, an amount of Rs.23 crores has already been paid.
Page 19
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
ii. It is submitted that the said Agreement for Sale specifically
stipulates that partition and separate possession of the
property shall take place only upon the final judgment and
decree of the suit for partition (Special Civil Suit No.54 of
1998), which is pending in the District Court, Pune. It is
submitted that the same is not a Sale Deed and just
Agreement for Sale and therefore, no right is created in
favour of those accused. It is submitted that even the
possession is with the First Informant and therefore, by no
stretch of imagination, Section 111 of the BNS concerning
land grabbing and organised crime will apply.
iii. It is submitted that in terms of Section 44 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, the co-owner of the immovable property
has right to transfer his undivided share or interest.
iv. As far as the Service Agreement is concerned, the said
agreement specifically provides time lines and the said
Service Agreement has thereafter being terminated and the
payment which has been received by those persons after two
days of termination of Service Agreement, in fact, were paid
Page 20
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
by the cheques along with termination notice and the said
cheques were thereafter deposited in the bank and therefore
amount was received after the termination of those Service
Agreement. In any case, it is submitted that the dispute is of
civil nature and therefore, the custodial interrogation is not
necessary.
5. Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
accused No.17-Prakash Chajjed who has purchased the property
from one Priyamvada Marathe by registered Agreement of Sale
dated 9th May 2024 raised the following contentions:-
i. It is submitted that in fact, the Civil Suit has been filed
by Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. and Others through
Lalit Kumar Jain and Rahul Rajeev Arora against Priyamvada
Sushilkumar Marathe and others including Prakash Chajjed
i.e. accused No.17. It is submitted that in the said suit
Exhibit-5 application has been filed and by order dated 11 th
July 2024, the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Pune refused to grant any relief and thereafter, the subject
FIR has been filed on 23rd August 2025. It is submitted that
Page 21
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
thus malafidely FIR has been filed after the Civil Court
refused to grant any ad-interim relief. It is submitted that the
said order is not even challenged before the Higher Court. In
any case, it is submitted that the dispute is of civil nature and
therefore, the custodial interrogation is not necessary.
ii. It is submitted that the contentions which have been
raised in the said civil dispute are that vendors of the present
Applicants has no right, title and interest. It is submitted that
admittedly, the vendors i.e. Priyamvada Marathe belogs to
Thatte family and she is daughter of Vishwanath Thatte. She
was excluded in the Conveyance Deed dated 9th May 2010,
which was executed between Thatte family through
Lalitkumar Kesarimal Jain, Rahul Rajeev Arora, Rohit Rajeev
Arora, Punam Rajeev Arora, Surendra Kapur HUF through
Rajeev Hiralal Arora and M/s. Kumar Urban Development
Pvt. Ltd. as purchasers, wherein Rajeev Arora has shown as
confirming party. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out the
decree which has been passed in Special Civil Suit No.1153
of 1995 and Special Civil Suit No.1154 of 1995 (Page
Nos.105 to 140) (Anticipatory Bail Application No.2718 of
Page 22
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
2025) and submitted that the said consent decree was
passed in said Special Civil Suit No.1153 of 1995 and Special
Civil Suit No.1154 of 1995 on 28 th June 2000. However, the
Defendant No.2 Vishwanath Ganesh Thattee has passed
away on 21st July 1998 and the legal heirs of the Deceased
Defendant No.2 were not brought on record and therefore,
the said decree is not binding on the legal heirs of
Vishwanath Thatte. Learned Senior Counsel therefore,
submitted that the legal heirs and representatives of late
Vishwanath Thatte i.e. Priyamvada Marathe has title to the
subject property and the same has been purchased by
registered Agreement of Sale dated 9th May 2024.
6. Mr. Merchant, learned Counsel appearing for the accused
Nos.9 to 11-Kiran Thatte, Uday Thatte and Mahesh Gadgil
submitted that the subject properties are of the said Thatte family
and they have got share in the property. Mr. Merchant, learned
Counsel submitted that as co-owners are having share in the
property, these Applicants i.e. accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 have sold
the property in favour of Elephanta Realty LLP. Learned Counsel
Page 23
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
submitted that dispute if any, is of civil nature and therefore, the
custodial interrogation is not necessary.
7. Ms. Chowdhary, learned Counsel appearing for the accused
No.19-Sandeep Pawar and the accused No.18-Abhijeet Kate
submitted that they were service providers and their role is limited
as set out in clause No.13 of the Agreement for Sale dated 9 th May
2024. She submitted that therefore, the custodial interrogation is
not necessary.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Maneshinde, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the First Informant-Rahul Rajeev Arora raised the
following contentions:-
i. Learned Senior Counsel tendered a chart wherein, role of
each accused has been set out. Learned Senior Counsel
submitted that in the year 1769, the land was granted as
“Inam” by Peshwas to the family of Narayan Bhat and
Vishwanath Bhat (Thatte). At the time of enactment of the
Maharashtra Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the
Laxman Chimanji Thatte branch of the family was in
Page 24
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
possession and using the land. The said Thatte family has
three branches, which are as follows:
(a) Waman Vishwanath Thatte Branch
(b) Nagesh Vishwanath Thatte Branch
(c) Laxman Chimanji Thatte Branch
ii. It is submitted that Waman Thatte and Nagesh Thatte
branch lost their right in “Inam” after the enactment of the
Maharashtra Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and
exclusive rights are vested with Laxman Chimanji Thatte
branch as Laxman Chimanji Thatte was in actual possession
and occupation of the land when the Maharashtra Personal
Inams Abolition Act, 1955 came into force. Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the same was confirmed by order
dated 7th June 1974 passed by the learned District Judge,
Pune.
iii. It is submitted that the First Informant’s family purchased
subject land by registered Agreement for Sale dated 31st
March 1988 from Laxman Thatte branch and the said sale
Page 25
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
was further given effect to by consent decree dated 28th
June 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Pune and registered Deed of Conveyance dated
26th November 2012.
iv. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out schedule of payment as
set out in the agreement dated 20th March 2023 executed
by the family members of Thatte family in favour of
Elephanta Realty LLP with which the accused Nos.1 to 4 are
concerned. It is submitted that members of the Thatte family
executed said registered Agreement dated 20th March 2023
without any right, title and interest and inspite of that, the
rights have been created in favour of said Elephanta Realty
LLP and huge consideration of Rs.96,25,00,000/- has been
agreed to be paid. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out
clause No.7 (Pages 426 to 428 of Anticipatory Bail
Application No.2852 of 2025) and clause No.11 (Pages 431
and 432 of Anticipatory Bail Application No.2852 of 2025)
and submitted that the manner in which these clauses are
set out in the Agreement of Sale clearly shows that the same
is for the purpose of land grabbing and cheating. Learned
Page 26
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Senior Counsel submitted that Section 111 of the BNS
clearly applies to this case.
v. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out Service Agreement
executed between said Elephanta Realty LLP and accused
Nos.12 and 13. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that thus
the offence is very serious where the custodial interrogation
is necessary. Learned Senior Counsel therefore, submitted
that all these Anticipatory Bail Applications be dismissed.
9. Ms. Mulekar, learned APP, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP and
Ms. Yadav, learned APP strongly opposed the Anticipatory Bail
Applications. They submitted that the offence is very serious. All of
them submitted that the Applicants are not co-operating with the
investigation and have not produced the documents. All of them
submitted that the offence is concerning land grabbing and
organised crime and therefore, the custodial interrogation is
necessary.
10. In view of the said contention raised by learned APPs,
learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submit that the
Page 27
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Applicants are ready and willing to submit the documents and said
documents will be furnished to the Investigating Officer within a
period of one week.
11. Perusal of the record shows that subject land is Survey No.99
at Village-Tathawade, Taluka- Mulshi, District- Pune admeasuring
34 hectares 35 Ares. In the year 1769, the subject land was granted
as “Inam” to the family of Narayan Vishwanath Bhat (Thatte) by
Peshwas. Said Thatte family has three branches namely, Waman
Vishwanath Thatte branch, Nagesh Vishwanath Thatte branch and
Laxman Chimanji Thatte Branch.
12. It is the submission of Mr. Maneshinde, learned Senior
Counsel that branch of Laxman Chimanji Thatte was in actual and
physical occupation of the subject land and therefore, after
enactment of the Maharashtra Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1955,
branch of Laxman Chimanji Thatte became the absolute owners of
the subject property. Learned Senior Counsel submits that
accordingly, the same was confirmed by the learned District Judge
by order dated 7th June 1974 and by further order dated 2 nd July
1989. It is the submission of Mr. Maneshinde, learned Senior
Page 28
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Counsel appearing for the First Informant that these two orders
were never challenged by the accused Nos.9 to 11 or their
predecessors and therefore, other branches of said Thatte family
namely of Waman Vishwanath Thatte and Nagesh Vishwanath
Thatte have no right, title and interest in the subject property and
therefore sale/ creation of right, title and interest by the members
of these two branches of the Thatte family is serious offence of
land grabbing and also of organised crime.
13. In view of the above contentions, it is necessary to set out
certain factual aspects:-
i. Perusal of the record shows that members of Waman
Vishwanath Thatte branch and Nagesh Vishwanath
Thatte branch have filed Special Civil Suit No.54 of
1998 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Pune at Pune. To the said suit inter alia members
belonging to Laxman Chimanji Thatte branch are
impleaded as the Defendants as also the First
Informant. The said suit has been filed by the family
members belonging to Waman Vishwanath Thatte
Page 29
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
branch and Nagesh Vishwanath Thatte branch seeking
partition and separate possession of their ⅓ share
each against the members of Laxman Chimanji Thatte
branch.
ii. In the meanwhile, as it is the contention that subject
property is of the absolute ownership of branch of
Laxman Chimanji Thatte branch, the First Informant’s
family purchased the said land by registered
Agreement for Sale dated 31st March 1988 and the
possession has been handed over subsequently on
execution of the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th
November 2010.
iii. In the meanwhile, Special Civil Suit No.1153 of 1995
and Special Civil Suit No.1154 of 1995 were filed by
Rajeev Hiralal Arora, Hiralal Ramrattan Manaktala
and Surendra Kapur. The present First Informant is a
son of Plaintiff No.1-Rajeev Hiralal Arora. It is
relevant to note that to the said suit, Vishwanath
Ganesh Thatte was arrayed as party – Defendant No.2
Page 30
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
and he passed away on 21st July 1998 and without
bringing his heirs on record namely Priyamvada
Marathe and others, consent decree was obtained in
those two suits on 28th June 2000.
iv. Said Priyamvada Marathe and others executed
registered Agreement to Sale dated 9th May 2024 in
favour of Accused No.17- Prakash Bhikamchan
Chajjed with respect to their share in the subject
property.
v. It is the submission of the First Informant that
pursuant to Agreement for Sale dated 31st March
1988, Conveyance Deed dated 26th November 2010
and consent decree dated 28th June 2000 passed in
Special Civil Suit No.1153 of 1995 and Special Civil
Suit No.1154 of 1995, the First Informant is the
absolute owner of the said property.
vi. In view of the contention raised by the First Informant
it is required to note the issues framed in Special Civil
Page 31
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
Suit No.54 of 1998 which has been filed by members
of Waman Vishwanath Thatte branch and Nagesh
Vishwanath Thatte branch inter alia against members
of Laxman Chimanji Thatte branch as also against the
First Informant. The said issues are very relevant,
which are as under:
“ISSUES in Spl.C.S. No.54/1998 :-
1. Whether plaintiffs prove their right, title and
interest over the suit property to the extent of
2/3rd share viz. 1/3rd of plaintiff no.2 and
1/3rd of plaintiff nos.3 to 10?
2. Whether impleading plaintiff nos.3 to 10 is
illegal and on this count suit is liable to be
dismissed?
3. Whether suit is within limitation?
4. Whether defendant nos. 1. to 12 prove their
exclusive ownership and possession over the
suit property?
5. What are the effects of Judgment and
Decree in Civil Appeal No.919 of 1974 over
this suit?
6. Whether suit is correctly valued? If not what
are the effects?
Page 32
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
7. Whether defendants prove that suit is not
maintainable in view of the provisions of Inam
Act?
8. Whether suit is not maintainable for non-
payment of court fee?
9. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs
sought?
10. What order decree and costs?”
“In view of order passed below Ex.337
following is the recasted issue no.9.
9] Whether the Sanad dated 12/07/1911
granted in favour of V.N. Thatte is valid and
illegal? ”
(Emphasis added)
vii. It is significant to note that the issues inter alia are
concerning whether the Plaintiffs have right, title and
interest over the suit property to the extent of ⅔
share, whether the Defendant No.1 to 12 proved their
exclusive ownership and possession over the suit
property i.e. vendors of the First Informant, etc. The
most important issue is regarding effect of Judgment
and Decree in Civil Appeal No.919 of 1974 on the
Page 33
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
basis of which it is the contention of Mr. Maneshinde,
learned Senior Counsel that vendors of the First
Informant’s family have got absolute right, title and
interest in the subject property. The issue No.9, which
has been added by order dated 30th November 2015
is concerning whether the Sanad dated 12th July 1911
granted in favour of V. N. Thattee is valid and illegal.
Thus, it is very clear that a dispute concerning the title
of vendors of the First Informant is pending in said
Special Civil Suit No.54 of 1998.
viii. It is also very relevant to note that accused No.17-
Prakash Chajjed purchased undivided interest of
Priyamvada Marathe, Shriram Marathe, Sushilkumar
Marathe who are the legal heirs of deceased-
Vishwanath Ganesh Thatte by Agreement of Sale
dated 9th May 2022 and thereafter, Confirmation
Deed dated 17th May 2022 has been executed by
Sumitra Sushilkumar Marathe on 4th June 2024.
Page 34
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
ix. Said Priyamvada Marathe filed a complaint with the
Police Commissioner, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune against
Rahul Arora (First Informant), Punam Arora and
Kumar Urban Development Corporation.
x. Thereafter Kumar Urban Development Corporation
through Lalitkumar Jain and Rahul Arora filed Civil
Suit No.1068 of 2024 in the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Pune at Pune, wherein the Defendant
No.3 as Vardhan Associates a Partnership Firm its
partner- Prakash Chajjed i.e. the Applicant in
Anticipatory Bail Application No.2718 of 2025
(accused No.17) has been impleaded. In the said suit
relief sought is seeking declaration that registered Sale
Deed dated 9th May 2024 and Confirmation Deed
dated 17th May 2024 be declared inter alia as illegal,
null and void. It is very significant to note that by
order dated 11th July 2024 passed by the learned 8 th
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, below Exhibit-5 in
Special Civil Suit No.1068 of 2024 no ad-interim
order has been passed. The Learned Judge refused to
Page 35
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
grant any ad-interim order. It is an admitted position
that said order has not been challenged by the First
Informant or other Plaintiffs.
xi. It is relevant to note that thereafter subject FIR has
been filed on 23rd August 2025.
14. It is the contention of Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the accused No.17 that filing of the said suit
being Special Civil Suit No.1068 of 2022 and not granting ad-
interim injunction order has not been disclosed in the FIR.
15. In any case, it is relevant to note that the dispute between
the parties is pending in the Civil Court wherein the members of
the Thatte family i.e. Waman Vishwanath Thatte branch and
Nagesh Vishwanath Thatte branch are claiming ⅔ share in the
subject property being Special Civil Suit No.54 of 1998. The
legality and validity of the Agreement of Sale dated 9 th May 2024
and Confirmation Deed dated 17th May 2024 executed in favour of
Vardhaman Associates through partner i.e. accused No.17-Prakash
Chajjed is subject matter of the dispute in Special Civil Suit
Page 36
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
No.1068 of 2024 filed by the Kumar Urban Development Private
Limited, Rahul Rajeev Arora -the First Informant, Rohit Rajeev
Arora, Punam Arora, Sureshkumar Kapur HUF, Northern Lights
Developers LLP. Thus, the factual aspect on record clearly shows
that there are civil disputes pending between the parties and the
same is concerning right, title and interest not only of Waman
Vishwanath Thatte branch and Nagesh Vishwanath Thatte branch
out of said Thatte family but even of Laxman Chimanji Thatte
branch through whom the First Informant and his family is seeking
rights.
16. Mr. Kumbhkoni, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out
clause No.3 of the Agreement for Sale dated 25 th March 2022
executed by the members of Nagesh Vishwanath Thatte branch in
favour of Elephanta Realty LLP with whom the accused Nos.1 to 4
are concerned i.e. the members of Panjabi family. The said clause
No.3, reads as under:
“3) It is specifically agreed by and between the
parties hereto that, the suit for partitition bearing
S.C.S. no.54/1998 filed before the Hon’ble Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Pune is still pendng, and the
partition and separate possession of the said
property shall take place only upon the final
Page 37
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
judgement and decree of the aforementioned suit. It
is specifically agreed by and between the parties
hereto that, the Vendors shall execute the Sale
Deed/any other appropriate Final Deed of Transfer,
in favour of the Purchasers, in respect of the said
property, within 30 days from the date of aforesaid
judgment and decree, upon simultaneous handing
over of possession with fencing of the said property
by the Vendors. Notwithstanding anything
mentioned hereinabove, it shall be the sole
discretion of the Purchaser to get executed the Sale
Deed of said property in its favour from the Vendors
as a POA Holder of the Vendors, at any time as
deemed fit by the Purchaser, upon notifying the
Vendors regarding the same.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, the said clause clarifies that partition and separate
possession to take place only upon final Judgment and Decree of
Special Civil Suit No.54 of 1998. Thus, the said specific clause
clarifies that prima facie it cannot be said that by the said
agreement, there is land grabbing and organised crime as
contemplated under Section 111 of the BNS.
17. However, there is one more aspect of the matter, which is
pointed out by Mr. Maneshinde, learned Senior Counsel. Learned
Senior Counsel has pointed out that said Elephanta Realty LLP
executed Service Agreement with the accused Nos.5 to 8 and
Page 38
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
accused nos.12 to 13 and the learned Senior Counsel has pointed
out the scope of work as set out in clause No.3 and more
particularly, clause No.3(iii), which reads as under:
“iii. To continue and conduct the process of getting
the mutation done in respect of the names of the
Land Owners and thereafter, of the Party no.1, in
the occupier column of the 7/12 extract of the said
property and other revenue record, as owners
thereof within a period of 60(sixty) days from the
date of the said Articles of Agreement dated
18/03/2023, and for the purpose of the same, make
and file necessary applications, apepals, affidavits,
Undertakings etc., duly signed by the Land Owners
and/or Party no.1, as the case may be, and further
to initiate appropriate proceeding/s before the
Revenue Authorities, Revenue Minister, High COurt,
etc. and further, diligently conduct the said
proceeding/s, as representatives of the Land
Owners and/or Party no.1, as the case may be. To
conduct/follow-up/pursue the said matters and
obtain final and favorable order for the Party no.1.”
(Emphasis added)
18. A bare perusal of reading of the above clause clearly shows
that the said agreement is not only totally illegal and in fact, the
same records that the said accused Nos.5 to 8 and accused Nos.12
and 13 will take steps to ensure that favourable orders are passed
by the Revenue Authorities, Revenue Minister and the High Court
etc. However, Mr. Kumbhkoni, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Desai,
Page 39
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
learned Counsel and Mr. Bhadeka, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that although the clause is framed in the manner in
which the same is appearing in the agreement, the intention
between the parties was to see that those proceedings would be
handled by accused Nos.5 to 8 and 12 to 13 diligently just to
ensure that the same are disposed of speedily and they will take
steps to file necessary Applications, Appeals, Affidavits etc. Learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the intention was totally different.
Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Counsel submits that, in any case,
the said Service Agreement has been terminated.
19. Thus, in the facts and circumstances and as discussed herein
above, the dispute is mainly of civil nature. There are at least two
suits which are pending and the same is discussed herein above in
detail. Revenue Proceedings are also pending between the parties.
Civil disputes raising important issues concerning the subject
properties are pending.
20. Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of Anticipatory
Bail. In view thereof, the following order is passed:
Page 40
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
ORDER
i. In the event of arrest of the Applicant-Prakash
Bhikamchan Chajjed (Anticipatory Bail Application
No.2718 of 2025), the Applicant No.1-Kiran
Bhalchandra Thatte, the Applicant No.2-Uday
Bhalchandra Thatte and the Applicant No.3- Mahesh
Ravindra Gadgil (Anticipatory Bail Application
No.2806 of 2025), the Applicant-Abhijeet Narendra
Kate (Anticipatory Bail Application No.2840 of 2025),
the Applicant-Sandeep Sahebrao Pawar (Anticipatory
Bail Application No.2838 of 2025), the Applicant-
Moti Udharam Panjabi (Anticipatory Bail Application
No.2852 of 2025), the Applicant -Raju Ram Panjabi
(Anticipatory Bail Application No.2878 of 2025), the
Applicant No.1-Jitendra Sundardas Panjabi and the
Applicant No.2- Naresh Ramchandra Panjabi
(Anticipatory Bail Application No.2877 of 2025), in
connection with C.R. No.149 of 2025 registered with
the Lashkar Police Station, Pune City, Pune, the
Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their
Page 41
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each
with one or two solvent sureties each in the like
amount.
ii. The Applicants shall attend the Lashkar Police Station,
Pune City, Pune, as and when called by the
Investigating Officer and shall co-operate with the
investigation.
iii. The Applicants shall handover the documents
concerning subject land and other documents which
the Investigating Officer requires for the investigation
within a period of two weeks from today.
iv. The Applicants shall furnish their cell phone number
and residential address to the Investigating Officer
and shall keep the same updated, in case of any
change thereto.
v. The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
Page 42
Sonali
906-ABA-2718-2025+.DOC
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.
vi. The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witness in any manner.
vii. The Applicants shall not leave India without prior
permission of the learned Trial Court/concerned
Sessions Court.
21. The Anticipatory Bail Applications are disposed of
accordingly.
22. In view of the disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Applications,
nothing survives in the Interim Applications and the same are also
disposed of.
23. Needless to observe that the observations made in this order
are prima facie and made for the purpose of consideration of pre-
arrest bail.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 43
Sonali
Checking your session…