Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

AMOL RAMDAS KONDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, directing that the applicants be released on bail if arrested, subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

Amol Ramdas Konde and Krushnat Mahadev Aarde were charged in CR No.124/2022 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Registration Act, alleging forgery of a NA order. Their first anticipatory bail application (ABA No.589/2023) was rejected. After the investigation concluded, the charge‑sheet indicated that the applicants were not involved in the forgery but had merely used the purportedly forged order, and the investigating officer recorded no complicit conduct. The applicants cooperated with the investigation and no further arrest was deemed necessary. The Court, noting the completed investigation, the applicants' societal ties, and the lack of evidence of complicity, exercised its discretion to grant anticipatory bail, ordering release on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with conditions. The applications were therefore allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the investigation is complete and the applicants are not found complicit in the alleged forgery.
  • Whether the arrest of the applicants is necessary to further the investigation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • pre‑arrest bail
  • forgery
  • registration act
  • IPC offences
  • investigation
  • charge sheet
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                                                                                1-ABA-3445-2025.DOC



                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3445 OF 2025


                              Amol Ramdas Konde                                       ..Applicant
                                   Versus
                              The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent

                                                       WITH
                                   ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3498 OF 2025


                              Krushnat Mahadev Aarde                                  ..Applicant
                                   Versus
                              The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent

                              Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Mr. Aadesh Konde-Deshmukh, for the
                                   Applicant in both applications.

                              Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP in ABA No. 3445/2025
                              Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP in ABA No. 3498/2025.
                              Mr. Ganesh Dixit – P.S.I., Alankar Police Station is present.

                                                          CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                          DATE :         8th JANUARY 2026

                              P.C.:

                              1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

SANTOSH
           Digitally signed
           by SANTOSH
                              2.      These are the second applications for pre-arrest bail.
           SUBHASH
SUBHASH    KULKARNI
KULKARNI   Date: 2026.01.08
           19:03:20 +0530


                              3.      The applicants are arraigned in C.R. No. 124/2022

                              registered with Alankar Police Station, Pune for offences

                              punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section

                              34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Penal Code’) and Section

                              82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Registration Act,
                                                                   1/4
                              SAINATH
                                             1-ABA-3445-2025.DOC

1908’). The gravamen of the indictment against the applicants

and co-accused was that, the accused had forged NA permission

purportedly granted by the Sub Divisional OfEcer, Pune.

4.   The Erst application for pre-arrest bail, which was jointly

Eled by the applicants, being Anticipatory Bail Application No.

589/2023, was rejected by this Court by an order dated 21 st

August, 2023.

5.   The applicants have preferred these second applications

for bail, as in the intervening period, the Investigating Agency

has completed the investigation and lodged the charge-sheet,

with the assertions that, the investigation revealed that, the

forgery of NA Order was allegedly committed by the Accused

Nos. 1 to 5 and the applicants had no role in the alleged forgery

of the NA order. The Investigating Agency has arraigned the

applicants primarily for the offence punishable under Section

82 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6.   On perusal of the charge-sheet, it becomes evident that,

the Investigating OfEcer has recorded a categorical opinion that,

the investigation did not reveal the complicity of the applicants

in the alleged forgery of the NA Order and the role of the

applicants is restricted to using the allegedly forged order while



                                    2/4
SAINATH
                                              1-ABA-3445-2025.DOC

registering the instrument, and, thus, they are sought to be

arraigned under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908.

7.    The learned APP, on instructions of the Investigating

OfEcer, who is present in the Court, submits that, post the

rejection of Erst application for pre-arrest bail, during the

course of investigation, notices under Section 41-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 were issued to the applicants and

they have co-operated with the investigation, and, thus, the

Investigating OfEcer did not consider it necessary to arrest the

applicants.

8.    In view of the aforesaid developments, at this juncture, the

arrest of the applicants does not seem necessary to facilitate

further investigation. In fact, the investigation has, prima facie,

ruled out the complicity of the applicants in the forgery of

alleged order.

9.    In these circumstances, since the investigation is complete

for all intent and purpose and the applicants appear to have

roots in the society, this Court is inclined to exercise the

discretion in favour of the applicants.

10.   Hence, the following order:-




                                  3/4
SAINATH
                                               1-ABA-3445-2025.DOC

                            ::ORDER::


a)   The applications stand allowed.

b)   In the event of the arrest of the applicants - Amol Ramdas

Konde and Krushnat Mahadev Aarde, in connection with the

C.R. No. 124/2022, registered with Alankar Police Station, Pune

for offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471

r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 82 of

the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the applicants be released on

bail on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each,

with one or two sureties in the like amount.

c)   The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution

evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the Erst informant

or any of the prosecution witnesses or any of the persons

acquainted with the facts of the case.

e)   The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings

before the jurisdictional Court.

f)   The applications stand disposed.




                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                                   4/4
SAINATH


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.