Bombay High Court
DHIRAJKUMAR SURENDRA SETHIYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order granting anticipatory bail, disposing the application in terms of that order.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay heard Anticipatory Bail Application No.2951 of 2024 filed by Dhirajkumar Surendra Sethiya, accused of offences under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly forging a document of an informant’s identity. The applicant argued that the sale of an undivided share was effected through a registered agreement, with requisite permission under the Vatan Abolition Act, and that no allegations were made against the other consenting brother. A Single Judge had earlier granted interim pre‑arrest bail on 29 October 2024, imposing a bond and conditions, despite an earlier rejection by an Additional Sessions Judge. The State counsel pointed out that a charge‑sheet had been filed. The appellate court disposed of the anticipatory bail application, confirming the earlier interim protection and directing that the matter proceed as per the Single Judge’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged forgery under multiple IPC sections.
- Whether the existence of a registered sale agreement and permission under the Vatan Abolition Act negates the seriousness of the alleged offences for bail purposes.
- Whether the earlier rejection of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge can be set aside by the High Court.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- forgery
- Indian Penal Code
- Vatan Abolition Act
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
913-ABA-2951-2024.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2951 OF 2024
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN Dhirajkumar Surendra Sethiya …Applicant
ARJUN VITTHAL
VITTHAL KUDHEKAR
KUDHEKAR Date: Versus
2026.01.08
20:35:16
+0530
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar, for the Applicant.
Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent-State.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 08 JANUARY 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Ms. Newton, learned APP for the Respondent-State of
Maharashtra.
2. A learned Single Judge by Order dated 29th October 2024 has
granted interim protection to the Applicant. The said Order reads as
under :-
“1. This is an Application for pre-arrest bail by the
Applicant/Accused in connection with C. R. No. 664 of 2024
registered with Chakan Police Station, District - Pimpri
Chinchwad for the offence punishable u/s. 419, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant/Accused No.
2 and the learned APP for the Respondent-State.
1
913-ABA-2951-2024.doc
3. Perused the FIR dated 21/09/2024 filed by the
Complainant – Ananda Damu Bhosale. It is the case of the
Complainant that the Applicant forged the document of
informant’s identity and the informant was not present when
the alleged document was executed and he was falsely shown
as present as consenting party.
4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has invited this
Court’s attention to the agreement to sell from which it can be
made out that the Complainant’s brother – Govind has sold
the undivided share to the Applicant. It is submitted that
apart from the complainant, there is one more real brother -
Vithoba who was also consenting party, against whom no
allegations are made. He submitted that considering that the
transaction has taken place under a registered document and
that the necessary permission dated 10/08/2022 under the
applicable Vatan Abolition Act was obtained, case is made out
for grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have perused the order dated 15/10/2024 by which
the pre-arrest bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, Pune. From the order it appears
that there are no antecedents involved.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant is ready to abide by the conditions as may be
imposed by the Court. Hence, the following ad-interim order
is passed:
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant –
Dhirajkumar Surendra Sethiya, in connection with C. R.
No. 664 of 2024 registered with Chakan Police Station,
he be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond of
Rs.25,000/- with one or more surety in the like amount.
(b) The Applicant is directed not to tamper with the
prosecution evidence and not to influence the witnesses
involved.
(c) The Applicant is directed to co-operate with the
investigation and also directed to report to the concerned
police station, as and when called.
2
913-ABA-2951-2024.doc
5. Place the above matter before the regular Court on
25/11/2024 for further hearing.
6. All concerned to act on authenticated or digitally
signed copy of this order.”
The said interim protection continues till date.
3. Ms. Newton, learned APP, states that the Charge-sheet is already
filed.
4. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in
terms of the Order dated 29th October 2024 passed by a learned Single
Judge.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
3
Checking your session…