Bombay High Court
TATOBA BHIKAJI GAWADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail as the allegations prima facie establish his involvement in serious forgery and fabrication of government records.
Summary
The applicant, Tatoba Bhikaji Gawade, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre‑arrest bail for offences alleged in Crime No. 271 of 2026, which involve forgery of the Additional Collector’s digital signature and the District Collector’s seal to fabricate a land‑reclassification order. The petitioner argued that the FIR does not specifically allege his participation in the forgery or related offences, and therefore he is entitled to bail. The State, through the investigating officer, produced statements of several complainants and investigation papers indicating that the applicant masterminded the fabrication, received large sums of money, and is absconding, necessitating custodial interrogation. The court examined the FIR, the investigation material, and the seriousness of the alleged offences involving fabrication of government records. Finding that the allegations prima facie establish the applicant’s complicity in serious forgery and fraud, the court concluded that no indulgence in the form of anticipatory bail is warranted. Consequently, the application was rejected and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged forgery and fabrication of government records.
- Whether the FIR discloses sufficient particulars linking the applicant to the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences and the need for custodial interrogation preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 341(2), 341(3), 341(4)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- digital signature
- government records
- land classification
- fraud
- Section 482
- pre‑arrest bail
- investigation
Judgment
1/5
5-ABA-531-2026 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 531 OF 2026
Tatoba Bhikaji Gawade …...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. …...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rushikesh Barge i/b Mr. Tanaji Mahatugade, for Applicant.
Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.
API, Mr. Ali Mulla, Bhudargad Police Station, present.
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.09.17
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
16:07:48
+0530
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard, Mr. Rushikesh Barge, learned Advocate for the Applicant
and Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and
2 – State.
2. By the present Application filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest
bail in connection with Crime No. 271 of 2026 registered at Chandgad
Police Station, District Kolhapur, for offences punishable under Sections
316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 341(2), 341(3) and 341(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/5
5-ABA-531-2026 (CR).DOC
3. Crime No. 271 of 2026 was registered based on a complaint
lodged by the Tehsildar’s Office, Chandgad, Gram Mahasul Karyalay,
Turkewadi, Chandgad, District: Kolhapur. The FIR states that around 28 th
November, 2025, the Applicant (accused), with an oblique intention, used
the Digital Signature of the Additional Collector, Kolhapur, to forge the seal
of the District Collector’s Office, thereby creating an appearance of
authenticity and fabricating an Order to reclassify the land from “Class-II”
to “Class-I”. On the basis of the said fabricated Order/Documents, the
Revenue Officials effected a mutation entry. As per the allegations, this
exercise was undertaken to defraud the Government and thereby sell the
property to third parties.
4. Mr. Rushikesh Barge, learned Advocate for the Applicant, by
referring to the FIR, states that there are no averments in the entire FIR to
show the Applicant's involvement in Crime No. 271 of 2026. To elucidate,
he refers to the various sections charged in Crime No. 271 of 2026 and
submits that the ingredients of the said offences are not disclosed in
relation to the Applicant. He submits that there are no allegations that the
Applicant forged, committed forgery or made any false documents. He
submits that, as the FIR is silent on these issues, the Applicant is entitled to
pre-arrest bail.
5. Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 – State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/5
5-ABA-531-2026 (CR).DOC
pursuant to the registration of Crime No. 271 of 2026, it is revealed in
investigation that the Applicant is the mastermind behind the creation of
forged documents using the seal of the District Collector to create false and
fabricated documents. She submits that the statements of the persons,
namely, Vilas Ganpat Patil, Arun Ganpat Patil, Narayan Ganpat Patil and
Parshuram Ganpat Patil, whose names are shown in the 7/12 extract of the
property in question, make reference to the Applicant having assured them
that he would obtain a document from the Office of the Collector to make
the property freehold land, thereby enabling them to sell the property. She
further by referring to the investigation papers, submits that pursuant to
the FIR, seven (7) complainants have come forward to state that the
Applicant has adopted the same modus operandi in creating fabricated
documents pertaining to Government / Reveneue Records. She submits
that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required, as the offence
referred to in Crime No. 271 of 2026 is serious and pertains to fabrication
of Government Records. She submits that the investigation reveals the
Applicant's involvement in the crime. She submits that the money trail
leads to the Applicant. She submits that the Applicant is absconding. She
submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that the custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is required to ascertain how the Applicant
came into possession of the Digital signatures and seals of the office of the
District Collector.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/5
5-ABA-531-2026 (CR).DOC
6. Perused the record in the file of this Application and the
investigation papers produced by Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State, during the hearing.
7. Prima facie, the allegations in Crime No.271 of 2026 indicate
that Government Records have been fabricated, the Digital Signatures of
the Additional Collector, Kolhapur, the seal of the District Collector’s Office
have been forged and used to create a Order by which land from “Class-II”
has been classified to “Class-I”. As submitted by Ms S. N. Deshmukh, by
this process, that is by using fabricated/forged documents, land that was
otherwise not available for sale or had legal impediments has been
converted into freehold land.
8. Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 – State, refers to the documents in the investigation papers to
submit that the owners of the subject property have paid substantial
amounts to the Applicant to get the work done. She has submitted, from
the investigation papers, that after the registration of Crime No.271 of
2026, the Applicant has given two cheques amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- to
Narayan Ganpat Patil as a return of the amount he had received for doing
the work, that is, getting the land from “Class-II” to “Class-I”.
9. The complaints received by the Investigation after the
registration of Crime No.271 of 2026, from seven other complainants,
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/5
5-ABA-531-2026 (CR).DOC
prima facie indicate the Applicant having adopted a similar modus
operandi in respect of Revenue Records .
10. Prima facie, the Applicant's complicity in fabricating/forging
orders/documents, which are thereafter used to alter Revenue Records, is
revealed in the Crime No.271 of 2026.
11. Given the nature of allegations and the material revealed in the
investigation in Crime No.271 of 2026, the Applicant is not entitled to any
indulgence.
12. In view of the above, this Application is rejected.
13. Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.531 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…