SACHIN GABRU RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                -1-
                                                     aba1536.26.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 1536 OF 2025

1.    Raju Mansing Rathod

2.    Sanjay Harishchandra Phoke                .. Applicants

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another              .. Respondents

Mr. M. S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. U. L. Momale,
Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. S.B. Narwade, APP for the State.
Mr. Naresh Thacker, Advocate instructed by Mr. A. S. Barlota, Mr.
Sairam Subramaniam and Ms. Saloni Shah, Advocates for the
informant.

                            AND
     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2026 WITH
           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 368 OF 2026

1.    Raju Mansingh Rathod

2.    Sanjay Harishchandra Phoke                .. Applicants

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another              .. Respondents

Mr. M. S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. U. L. Momale,
Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.
Mr. Naresh Thacker, Advocate instructed by Mr. A. S. Barlota, Mr.
Sairam Subramaniam and Ms. Saloni Shah, Advocates for the
informant.
                                    -2-
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

                             AND
       ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2026 WITH
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 366 OF 2026

Sachin Gabru Rathod                               .. Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another                .. Respondents

Mr. P. A. Bharat, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.
Mr. Naresh Thacker, Advocate instructed by Mr. A. S. Barlota, Mr.
Sairam Subramaniam and Ms. Saloni Shah, Advocates for the
informant.



                           CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                      RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

COMMON ORDER :


1.     Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1536/2025 seek

pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0436/2025 registered

with     MIDC    CIDCO     Police     Station,   District   Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),

318(4), 316(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita whereas Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application

Nos. 48/2026 and 49/2026 seek pre-arrest bail in connection with

Crime No. 0752/2025 registered with MIDC CIDCO Police Station,

District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable
                                   -3-
                                                       aba1536.26.odt

under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) r/w

3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



2.    Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned Counsel for

the Informant and learned APP for the State. As experienced during

course of hearing, the facts and material on record is over lapping

and hence they are decided by this common order.



FACTS IN ANTICIPATORY          BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1536/2025

(Crime No. 436/2025)



3.    Informant Gopal Trilokchand Agrawal, is a director and

authorized representative in Riddhi Cotex Pvt. Ltd. and Rishi Fibers

Pvt. Ltd., as well as a partner and authorized representative in Siddhi

Fibers and Ramanuj Cotton Corporation, operating a pan-India

cotton trading business      through brokers.      According to the

informant, Applicant Sanjay Phoke, initially worked as a broker and

was engaged to manage land purchase and sale transactions on a

commission basis.      In 2018-2019, Applicant Sanjay introduced

Applicant Raju Mansing Rathod as an individual handling large-scale

real restate transactions.   Consequently, they were entrusted with
                                 -4-
                                                       aba1536.26.odt

overseeing the purchase and sale of the informant’s landed

properties. It is further claimed that in 2020, the informant and the

co-accused formed a partnership entity named Ramanuj Ventures,

with the objective of undertaking real estate transactions, land

development, and construction. In this partnership, the informant

held 50% shareholding, while Applicants Raju and Sanjay each held

25%. By March 2024, the total capital invested in the firm stood at

Rs. 8,61,18,606/-, of which Applicant Sanjay had contributed

Rs.81,25,000/- and Applicant Raju had contributed Rs. 30,25,000/-.



4.    In September 2020, Mr. Mansur Dalal informed the informant

that Vascon Engineers Ltd., Pune, intended to sell two of its

subsidiary companies namely Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd. And

Almet Corporation Ltd., both situated at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

As both properties, were located in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, the

informant desired to purchase them for business purposes through

Siddhi Fibers and Ramanuj Ventures, and accordingly, sent the

accused persons namely Sanjay and Raju to inspect the premises and

operations of the aforesaid companies. They subsequently reported

that the properties were viable and in suitable condition.
                                -5-
                                                    aba1536.26.odt

5.   In October 2020, the informant visited the office of Vascon

Engineers Ltd. and met director Mr. Vasudevan Murthy, his son

Mr. Siddharth Vasudevan Murthy, and other officials including

Applicants herein and Mr. Mansur Dalal, giving formal willingness to

purchase the said subsidiary companies.     It was mutually agreed

that Siddhi Fibers, a partnership firm under the informant’s

ownership, would acquire Almet Corporation Ltd., while Balaji

Builders and Developers, a partnership firm under the control of the

co-accused, would acquire Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd. This

decision was formally communicated to Vascon Engineers Ltd. by the

co-accused, and the total consideration for the acquisition of both

subsidiary companies was agreed upon at Rs.30,81,00,000/-,

pursuant to which a term sheet was executed.



6.   Following the execution of the term sheet in October 2020,

Applicants stated that since Balaji Builders & Developers lacked

sufficient financial capacity, the transaction would instead be

executed through the newly formed partnership firm, Ramanuj

Ventures.   In February 2021, a draft share transfer agreement

allocated 50% shares of Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd to the

informant and 25% each to Applicants Raju and Sanjay, while 100%
                                   -6-
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

rights to Almet Corporation Ltd. were to be assigned to Siddhi Fibers.

Mr. Mansoor Dalal reconfirmed this share distribution via email in

May 2023, though the original agreement remained valued at

Rs. 30.81 Crore.



7.    In September 2022, funds were remitted via RTGS from Yashas

Global to MIDC for land subdivision and conversion charges,

including   Rs.    2,85,88,663/-   for   Almet   Corporation   Ltd.   and

Rs. 1,01,08,701/- for Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd. On 12.05.2023,

Vascon Engineers Ltd. confirmed receipt of Rs. 13.39 Crore from

Ramanuj Ventures, noting that Rs. 1,01,08,701/- of this sum had

been utilized on 23.01.2021 for dividing Plot No. F-1/2. Out of the

total consideration, Rs. 1.53 Crore was funded by Siddhi Fibers, Rs.

55 Lakhs was collected from clients, and Rs. 11.31 Crore was

transferred via specified RTGS and cheques from Ramanuj Ventures’

bank account to Vascon Engineers Ltd.



8.    During the project, the Applicants promised to sell plots

through Marathwada Realtors, return the money belonging to Vascon

Engineers, and take the property in their own names.           They then

began selling plots on the land measuring 16,760.05 sq. m. and
                                 -7-
                                                       aba1536.26.odt

collected about Rs. 12.45 Crore as advance money, which was

deposited into the account of Ramanuj Ventures. On 20.01.2025, the

Applicant Raju and S. P. Nair sent an SBI Bank NOC for Vascon

Engineers to the informant’s phone.     When the informant went to

meet S.P. Nair regarding this on 23.01.2025, the meeting could not

take place and thereafter informant fell seriously ill.   This medical

emergency led to hospital treatments followed by strict bed rest at

home in February 2025. Taking unfair advantage of this illness and

absence, the Applicants acted behind the informant’s back, created

fake documents, removed the informant from their official position

and secretly transferred 100% of the partnership of Marathwada

Realtors into their own names on 28.03.2025, completely violating

the terms of their registered partnership agreement.



9.    In May 2025, upon the informant questioning the status of

land registrations, the accused persons offered a false assurance,

claiming that 100% of the shareholding in Marathwada Raltors and

Almet Corporation had been transferred to their names strictly as a

temporary measure to alleviate the informant’s operational burdens

during his illness, alongside a false promise of rendering a full

account later.   Despite prior valid agreements vesting complete
                                 -8-
                                                       aba1536.26.odt

ownership of Almet Corporation including Plot No. F-1/1, in the

informant,   the   accused    surreptitiously   usurped    the   entire

shareholding of both entities. To back their actions, they artificially

inflated transaction value by Rs. 9 Crore as penalty for delayed SBI

Bank NOCs, whereas on 31.03.2025          Vascon Company Ltd. had

officially reported the actual sale consideration to the BSE and NSE

as Rs. 30.81 Crore.



10.   To consummate this illegal takeover, the Applicants forged the

informant’s signatures to cancel an earlier Share Transfer Agreement

from February 2021, replacing it with backdated documents executed

on 28.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. Following this fraudulent transfer,

the Applicants proceeded to develop and sell lands belonging to

Marathwada Realtors while routing the resulting sale proceeds

through Ramanuj Ventures. Finally, the Applicants, acting in active

connivance with bank Applicants authorities, used forged signatures

to secretly operate and misappropriate funds from the partnership

account of Ramanuj Ventures.           Therefore, the present First

Information Report came to be filed.
                                 -9-
                                                          aba1536.26.odt

FACTS IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NOS. 48/2026 AND

49/2026 (Crime No. 752/2025)



11.   In this crime, the case of the prosecution rests on the

fundamental premise that the informant Shyam Agrawal, alongside

his brothers Gopal and Sanjay Agrawal, operating through their

partnership   firm   Siddhi   Fibers,   entered    into    a   registered

memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 21.03.2022 to acquire Plot

Nos. D-2 and D-3 admeasuring 55,967 sq. meters at MIDC

Chikalthana, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar with Wockhardt Ltd. for a

total consideration of Rs. 47.07 Crores. In furtherance of this deal,

the informant’s firm disbursed a sum total of Rs. 51.02 Crores,

inclusive of MIDC land-use conversion charges, thereby acquiring

valid rights to subdivide and market 41 individual plots. To facilitate

marketing, accused No. 1 (Raju Rathod) and Accused No. 2 (Sanjay

Phoke) were appointed as commercial brokers on a 1% commission

basis. Taking undue advantage of their fiduciary role, accused Nos.

1 and 2, in active collusion with accused No. 3 (Sachin alias Raj

Rathod), engaged in a criminal conspiracy by misrepresenting to

prospective buyers that they were the real owners of the property

under the banner of “Ramanuj Ventures”.           They collected token
                                  - 10 -
                                                          aba1536.26.odt

amounts via bank transfers to cover up their tracks while

misappropriating substantial cash          considerations by executing

fraudulent agreements to assign bearing the forged signatures of the

informant.



12.   It is further alleged that by doing this the accused persons

have caused severe monetary loss to the informant and his brothers,

moreover, committed digital forgery, and open criminal intimidation

when the plot purchasers demanded the execution of registered title

deeds.   At the time of registration, the twelve plot purchasers

discovered that the title lay with the Partnership Firm named Siddhi

fibers whose partners are the informant and his brothers. Accused

No. 3 (Sachin Rathod) brought those twelve flat purchasers with him

and physically confronted the informant at his office on 22.06.2025,

threatening him and his brothers with dire consequences if they deny

registrations of the said plots.        Subsequently, to sabotage the

complainant’s legal and commercial standing, the accused persons

conspired    a   cyber   fraud   by   creating   a   deceptive   email   ID

([email protected]) mimicking the informant’s legitimate

firm entity, and issuing unauthorized communications to Wockhardt

Ltd. officials. Further accused No. 3 used his personal email account
                                - 11 -
                                                       aba1536.26.odt

([email protected])      to    obstruct     ongoing     property

transactions.   In this way between 21.03.2022 and 14.07.2025,

based on disclosures by affected purchasers and documented

discrepancies, the accused persons collectively committed forgery,

criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation,

dishonest misappropriation of funds to the tune of approximately Rs.

7 Crores.



SUBMISSIONS        IN     ANTICIPATORY          BAIL    APPLICATION

NO.1536/2025

13.   Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that this is an

example wherein a civil dispute is given colour of criminality in order

to pressurise the Applicants to succumb to the terms of the

informant.   It is his contention that there is dispute between the

partners of Ramanuj Ventures in respect of sharing profits of the

business as the Applicants claim share in the entire profits of the

business whereas informant Gopal denies the same and restricts it to

the business of development of property and not cotton business. He

drew attention of the Court to the fact that there are two commercial

suits pending in respect of the dispute between the parties which is

generated from term sheet which is the only document signed by the
                                 - 12 -
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

parties. He claims that though there are emails indicating exchange

of drafts with regard to the terms of settlement between the partners

of Ramanuj Ventures and Vascon, the said document never reached

to the stage of execution of settlement and it always remained a draft.

It is his submission that in the First Information Report, though

there is allegation with regard to forged signatures as well as creation

of documents, there is no evidence in order to support the same. He

drew attention of the Court to the pleadings in commercial suits

indicating the prayers made therein which, according to him, covers

the issue sought to be raised in the criminal complaints. He submits

that it is settled position of law that the parties are not permitted to

convert civil dispute by giving colour of criminality to it. According to

him, after grant of interim relief to the Applicants, they appeared

before the Investigating Officer and pursuant to the directions issued

by this Court, a questionnaire raised by the Investigating Officer was

duly responded and having regard to the facts of the case, this is not

a case wherein custodial interrogation of the Applicants would be

necessary.   In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on

following judgments :-

(i)    Binay Kumar Singh and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand
       and others – Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55/2026
(ii)   Shally Mahant @ Sandeep Vs. State of Punjab
                               - 13 -
                                                    aba1536.26.odt

        SLP (CRL) No. 20 of 2020
(iii) Tuhin Kumar Biswas alias Bumba Vs. State of West Bengal
       2025 SCC Online SC 2604
(iv)   Chandran Ratnaswami Vs. K.C Palaniswamy and others
       (2013) 6 SCC 740
(v)    Naresh Kumar and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka
       and Another, SLP (CRL) No. 1570 of 2021
(vi) Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. And another Vs. State of Kerala and
       others, (2015) 8 SCC 293
(vii) Manoj Madhusudan Agrawal and another Vs. State of
       Maharashtra, Criminal Application (ABA) No. 30 of 2021 (BHC
       Nagpur Bench)
(viii) Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Another Vs. The State of
       Maharashtra and another, SLP (Crl.) No. 9857 of 2018
(ix) Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal
       and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1
(x)    Parag Kishore Satoskar and others Vs. State of Jharlkhand
       and another, (2026) SCC Online SC 1546
(xi) Raju Mansingh Rathod Vs. Gopal Trilokchand Agarwal and
       another Arbitration Application No. 13 of 2026


14.   Learned APP opposed the said contention by referring to the

statements recorded    during the course of     investigation   more

particularly statement indicating forgery of signatures of informant

Gopal and withdrawal of amount on the basis of RTGS form bearing

no signature of Gopal who is one of the partners of Ramanuj

Ventures and the account held by the said firm was to be operated by

all three partners.   He also drew attention of the Court to the

statement of a Company Secretary indicating that at the time of

signature on share transfer agreement, the Applicants were not
                                 - 14 -
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

present and the signatures are not done in her presence though she

signed the said document.      He also sought to refer the call detail

record indicating presence of Applicants at different place than the

place wherein the signatures were done on the share transfer

agreement. He also pointed out statement of witness indicating that

the present Applicants had sought consideration in cash after

undervaluing the consideration for the purpose of transaction in

respect of the plot.   Reference is also made to the WhatsApp chat

between the officers of Vascon Pvt. Ltd. and informant Gopal. He also

drew attention of the Court to the statements of bank employees in

connection with clearance of cheque which are said not to be signed

by informant Gopal. It is the contention of learned APP that having

regard to the investigation carried out till date, there is evidence

showing involvement of Applicants in the crime and as such this is

not a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Applicants.



15.   Learned Counsel for the informant, at the outset, drew

attention of the Court to the entire transaction including different

transactions in respect of share transfer of Vascon Pvt. Ltd.         He

explained to the Court the roles of Ramanuj Ventures, Marathwada

Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and other entities in respect of the said transaction.
                                - 15 -
                                                      aba1536.26.odt

According to him, there are specific allegations in the First

Information Report against the Applicants with regard to obtaining

share transfer agreement by keeping three partners in dark and

infact according to him, there is evidence to show that the parties

were fully aware of the fact that three partners are having 50% share.

He drew attention of the Court to the case law which indicates that

for the purpose of attracting provisions of cheating, forgery etc.,

forgery of signature itself does not amount to offence and wherever

any document is obtained with fraudulent intention, the offence can

be said to have been made out.       He further argued that merely

because commercial suits are filed, it cannot prevent the parties from

taking recourse of law in respect of the criminal element in the

transaction. He, however, claims that there is evidence in the form of

statements of witnesses showing the malafide intention of the

Applicants in obtaining the share transfer agreement.        He drew

attention of the Court to the reply filed by the informant before the

Commercial Court denying signatures of Gopal as well as others on

documents executed in favour of the purchasers of the plot. He drew

attention of the Court to the following judgments in order to buttress

his submissions :-

(i)   Vikas Sharma and another Vs. State of Punjab
      (P and H High Court) CRM-M-29195-2026
                                - 16 -
                                                      aba1536.26.odt

(ii)    Sagi alias Nakkala Surekha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
        and another, AIROnline 2026 AP 468
(iii)   Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana
        and another, (2023) 8 SCC 181
(iv)    Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Prasad Vassudev
        Keni and others, (2020) 20 SCC 1
(v)     Sheila Sebastian Vs R. Jawaharaj and another
        (2018) 7 SCC 581
(vi)    Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
        (2003) 3 SCC 641



SUBMISSIONS       IN   ANTICIPATORY      BAIL   APPLICATION     NOS.

48/2026 AND 49/2026



16.     Learned Counsel for Applicants submits that the First

Information Report does not point out specific allegations against the

Applicants. According to him, in absence of any agreement/contract

between the partners of Ramanuj Ventures, it cannot be assumed

that any criminality is involved in the acts of the Applicants.    He

further submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record to

show fabrication of documents of forgery of signatures of the

informant and any other person.           Insofar as contention of

prosecution as well as informant with regard to email of Ramanuj

Ventures being fabricated is concerned, he drew attention of the

Court to the number of documents indicating that much prior to the
                                 - 17 -
                                                       aba1536.26.odt

filing of First Information Report, even in the communication

addressed on behalf of the informant and partners of Siddhi Fibers,

the Email Id sought to be fabricated/created by the Applicants is

used.   It is his submission that there is no substance in the

contention of learned Counsel for informant with regard to recovery

of the said Email Id being that of one of the Applicants. He drew

attention of the Court to the documents on record which, according

to him, show that the other Email Id of Ramanuj Ventures is

recovered Email Id of brother of Gopal, who is not partner in the said

firm. It is his submission that the informant, without making any

specific allegation, is trying to take advantage of the differences

between these two Email Ids.         He once again reiterated that

commercial suit filed in connection with the transaction in question

covers the issue and this is an attempt to convert civil litigation into

criminal.   He also drew attention of the Court to the statements

recorded during the course of investigation so also he relied upon the

documentary evidence indicating that the partner of Siddhi Fibers

has sold one of the plots at much lower price than the plot allegedly

sold by the Applicants which, according to him, indicates that there

is no substance in the allegation that the plot was undervalued and

the consideration was received in cash. Infact, it is his submission
                                - 18 -
                                                      aba1536.26.odt

that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate any withdrawal of

cash from the account of Ramanuj Ventures and/or payment of any

money in cash.    He pointed out audit report of Ramanuj Ventures

indicating that they were solely signed by partner Gopal and not by

the Applicants.    He also denied allegations against one of the

Applicants with regard to the statement of witness indicating that in

the wife’s account of this Applicant, money has been transferred

which was withdrawn from the account of Ramanuj Ventures.



17.    Learned APP and learned Counsel for informant opposed grant

of pre-arrest bail to the Applicants contending that prima facie

material collected during investigation is sufficient to attribute

offence against the Applicants and having regard to the nature of

offence their custodial interrogation is necessary.       They drew

attention of the Court to the investigation papers, which according to

them, show fabrication/forgery of record such as documents, Emails

etc.   Reference is made to the statements of witnesses such as

Company Secretary Ms. Neelam, Swapnil Pawar to submit that doubt

is created with regard to the execution of the Share Transfer

Agreement and that there is undervaluation of the transaction of sale

of plots and money in cash has been demanded/received by
                                 - 19 -
                                                       aba1536.26.odt

Applicants.     Reference is also placed on the audio conversation

between Gopal and Officer of Vascon Engineer Ltd. to claim that the

said conversation substantiates the allegations against Applicants.

On these amongst other submissions, they claim rejection of

applications.



18.   At the outset, it needs to be recorded that learned Counsel for

the Applicant has sought to convince this Court that the informants

are choosing a particular police station in order to lodge reports

which, according to him, indicates the fact that within 15 minutes of

the informant giving information to the police, First Information

Report came to be lodged. This Court is not impressed by the said

arguments for the reason that whenever the police is prompt in

taking cognizance of the offence and records report, they are

criticised so also, on occasion, allegations are made that police is not

quick to respond to the people. Either way there becomes reason to

put the police in the dock. This Court, therefore, finds no substance

in the said allegation and hence the said contention stands rejected.
                                - 20 -
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

COMMON REASONS IN ALL THE APPLICATIONS



19.   At the outset, it needs to be clarified that since there are two

different crimes registered at the instance of informants, who happen

to be real brothers so also partners of Siddhi Fibers, and the claim is

with regard to the acts done by Applicants in connection with rights

of parties in respect of the respective companies, there is every

chance of overlapping of the facts.      This Court, therefore, finds it

appropriate to deal with these issues together to avoid multiplicity or

overlapping of the reasons.



20.   Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that first informants

in both the crimes are real brothers and also partners in Siddhi

Fibers and Directors in other connected firms. It is the case of the

informants that in respect of piece of land belonging to Vascon

Engineers Ltd. and    Wockhardt Ltd. some transaction was agreed

involving present Applicants through Marathwada Realtors Pvt. Ltd.,

Almet Corporation Ltd and Ramanuj Ventures. As far as execution of

documents is concerned, apparently except for term sheet executed in

the year 2020, there is no document containing signatures of

informants and present Applicants. The said term sheet however, is
                                - 21 -
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

executed by them along with other signatories. It is the case of the

Applicants that though draft agreement was circulated, it never

culminated into a contract. Prima facie, material collected during the

course of investigation supports the said contention.



21.   First Information Report lodged by Shyam as well as Gopal

allege about Applicants entering into share transfer agreement with

Vascon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Investigation papers indicate about the

said documents not being signed by Gopal nor he is being shown as

signatory thereof. Insofar as agreements with prospective purchasers

is concerned, Gopal as well as Shyam denied execution and it is also

contended   in   the   proceedings   before   the   Commercial   Court.

Undeniably, two commercial suits are filed by the Applicants in

respect of these two transactions and on the face of it, the said

proceedings involve the issue sought to be raised in respect of

transfer of shares being covered by the same and rights of parties.



22.   In both the First Information Reports, there are vague

allegations with regard to fabrication of documents and forgery of

signatures of the informants.   Similarly, allegations are made with

during the course of hearing with regard to the cheques of Ramanuj
                                      - 22 -
                                                              aba1536.26.odt

Ventures being misused by the partners i.e. Applicants herein and

referring to the statements of Mr. Sonawane as well as employees of

the bank, it is claimed that the signatures of Gopal on the said

cheque were forged.        Though during the course of hearing such

arguments are made, there are no specific allegations in the First

Information Report lodged by Gopal to the effect that the Applicants

forged his signatures on cheques. In this regard, it is necessary to

take note of the fact that though bank employees made statement to

that   effect   earlier,   however,    later   on,   during   the   course   of

investigation, it is claimed by them about they being forced to make

such statement by police. In any case, investigation does not indicate

any documentary evidence showing fabrication of signatures of Gopal

on the cheques and the only document to support the allegation is a

RTGS form without signature of Gopal.



23.    As far as allegations with regard to forgery of signature on

cheques and mis-appropiration of accounts of Ramanuj Ventures are

concerned, as rightly argued by learned Counsel for the Applicants

that there is no evidence to show any money being withdrawn from

the said account. Though a reference is made to the statement of Mr.

Pravin Pawar that he deposited amounts into the account of wife of
                                  - 23 -
                                                          aba1536.26.odt

one of the Applicants, however, on specific query made to the learned

APP with regard to any evidence about withdrawal of any cash, it was

answered in negative. Thus, there is no evidence to support the said

allegation. As far as realisation of cheques is concerned, the cheques

were realised and hence a question would arise as to whether it

would be open for the informant Gopal to dispute his signature on

the cheques now. In absence of any transaction showing withdrawal

of cash, there is no reason to assume on the basis of RTGS form that

the Applicants/partners of Ramanuj Ventures, mis-appropriated the

money of partnership firm. This becomes more relevant when there

is evidence on record to show that huge amounts are transferred to

Siddhi Fibers i.e. partnership of both informants and their brother

other than interest amount being debited from the said account in

their favour.   Pertinently, informant Gopal is sole signatory to the

Audit reports of Ramanuj Ventures which shows his control over the

affairs of the firm.



24.   More particularly, when there are no specific allegations in the

First Information Report to that effect, it will be difficult for any Court

to accept the same at later point of time. Infact, the statements
                               - 24 -
                                                     aba1536.26.odt

recorded during the course of investigation indicate about similarity

in the signatures of Gopal on the cheques.



25.   As far as allegation with regard to share transfer agreement is

concerned, reference is sought to be made to the statement of

Company Secretary Ms. Neelam, who claims that the signatories to

the agreement were not present when she endorsed the said

agreement.    Company Secretary is a responsible position and

signature of such person appears on the document. It is not the case

that the said documents are signed on behalf of Gopal by someone

else including Applicants. The issue sought to be raised by Gopal is

with regard to his right to get share in the said share transfer, he

being holding 50% share of Ramanuj Ventures.        This issue thus

becomes a issue with regard to the rights of the parties and not a

criminal offence as sought to be canvassed on behalf of learned

Counsel for the informant.    The said issue is a subject matter of

decision of commercial suits which are pending before the competent

Court. In absence of any case being sought to be made out regarding

forgery of signature of informant or any other person, it would be

difficult to attribute a criminal offence against the Applicants more
                                    - 25 -
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

particularly, when the First Information Reports came to be ldoged

after filing of commercial suits.



26.     So far as allegation with regard to forgery/fabrication/creation

of Email Id of Ramanuj Ventures is concerned, this Court is taken

through the investigation papers by learned Counsel for Applicants

which        undisputedly       indicate       about      Email       Id

“[email protected]” being used by all concerned including

partners of Siddhi Fibers for communication. Thus, it cannot be said

that it is a subsequent creation or fabrication. It is pertinent to note

that when it is alleged that Email Id “[email protected]”

had recovery Email as “[email protected]” and

recovery SMS phone number of Applicant Sushant Phoke, at the

same time, Email Id “[email protected]” has recovery

Email as ‘[email protected]” with recovery SMS phone

number of Shyam Agrawal i.e. partner in Siddhi Fibers but not

partner in Ramanuj Ventures.         Thus, having regard to these facts,

merely because Email Id had recovery mobile number of accused

Sanjay, per se the same will not be sufficient to hold that it is a bogus

Email Id.
                                 - 26 -
                                                      aba1536.26.odt

27.   There is also allegation with regard to undervaluation of the

plot, more particularly plot sold to Smt. Tarke.    Further, there is

allegation that the Applicants sought consideration in cash and to

support the said allegation reference is made to the statement of

Swapnil.   As far as these allegations are concerned, there is no

evidence to show that any cash being paid to the Applicants or they

received the same from any of the plot purchasers. The document

placed on record by Applicants which is executed on 30.04.2026 by

Siddhi Fibers in favour of Sanjay Kuche, execution of which is

admitted on behalf of informant, indicates that the sale consideration

in this agreement is at much lower price than the agreement in

respect of Smt. Tarke. This Court, therefore, finds no substance in

the   allegation   that   the   Applicants   have   undervalued   the

consideration and received the amount in cash.



28.   So far as conversation between officer of Vascon Engineers Ltd.

and informant Gopal is concerned, there is no supporting evidence to

indicate any call between them. The transcript on record is made on

the basis of Pendrive provided by informant Gopal. A specific query

was made in this regard to learned APP, he on instructions from the

Investigating Officer, made statement about it being WhatsApp call
                                 - 27 -
                                                        aba1536.26.odt

but with no supporting evidence. Apart from this, there is substance

in the contention of learned Counsel for Applicant Mr. Nair in ABA

No. 267/2026 that the conversation is open for interpretation cannot

be strictly considered as the evidence of commission of crime.



29.   Lastly, much stress is led upon Email Id created in respect of

MIDC Help Desk.      Learned Counsel for the Applicants sought to

argue that at the most it could be said that from the router used by

the Applicants the said Email Id is created.       In this regard, it is

pertinent to note that this Court finds substance in the contention of

learned Counsel for the Applicants that without making any specific

allegation in the First Information Report, the informants and

prosecution have sought to collect evidence in order to make out a

case against the Applicants. In any case, the contents of the said

Emails are in form of grievance/complaint which would hardly be

considered to be any act of forgery, fabrication etc. In the facts of the

case, there is reason to accept the contention of counsel for

Applicants that this could be a case wherein First Information

Reports came to be lodged for want of creating pressure on the

Applicants. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the

informant had sought to argue that since investigation is pending, it
                                     - 28 -
                                                              aba1536.26.odt

is not a fit case to enlarge the Applicants on pre-arrest bail.           The

offences in question came to be recorded/registered on 26.07.2025

and 13.12.2025, investigation is going on for substantive period now.

Perusal of the investigation papers indicate that investigation in the

crime is substantially done.         Merely for the reason that formally

charge-sheet has not been filed, it cannot be allowed to say that

investigation is in progress and that would become a ground for

rejection of pre-arrest bail.



30.   This Court, by order dated 09.09.2025 in ABA No. 1536/2025

has protected liberty of the Applicants. Record further indicates that

pursuant to the grievance made by the prosecution, the investigating

agency    was     directed      to   provide    questionnaire        to   the

Applicants/accused.      There is no dispute about the fact that they

responded to the said requisition and questions raised by the

Investigating Officer.       Thus, this is a case wherein there is

cooperation     of    the       Applicants     in   respect     of   required

queries/requisition of the investigating Agency. There is nothing to

show that the liberty granted to the Applicants in Anticipatory Bail

Application No. 1536/2026 was abused by them. Consequently, this
                                    - 29 -
                                                              aba1536.26.odt

Court finds no justification not to confirm the interim relief granted

to the Applicants. Hence, the following order :-

                                    ORDER



        (i)     Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1536/2025 is
        allowed in terms of the interim relief.


        (ii)    In    the   event   of   arrest    of   applicants   in
        Anticipatory        Bail Application Nos. 48/2026 and
        49/2026, in connection with Crime No. 752/2025
        registered with MIDC CIDCO Police Station, District
        Chhatrapati         Sambhajinagar,        for   the    offences
        punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4),
        336(3), 338 and 340(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
        Sanhita, they be released on bail on furnishing PR
        Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) each
        with one surety in the like amount.


        (iii)   They shall attend the concerned police station
        as and when called on written intimation.


        (iv)    They shall not contact the witnesses directly or
        indirectly.


        (v)     They shall not interfere with the evidence in any
        manner whatsoever.
                                 - 30 -
                                                          aba1536.26.odt

        (vi)     They   are further directed to cooperate the
        investigating agency for further investigation.


        (vii)   Learned APP to communicate this order to the
        concerned Investigating Officer.



30.   Pending application, if any, does not survive and stands

disposed of.



                                                 ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb