Bombay High Court

GANESH BABAN GITEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 18 April 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: R N LADDHA

Holding

The court held that the FIR does not disclose a specific overt act by the applicant and that his conduct does not amount to forgery, thereby warranting the grant of anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Ganesh Baban Gite, sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging forgery and fraud in land subdivision to evade the statutory requirement of reserving 20% of large residential projects for EWS/LIG housing under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that fabricated Hissa forms and forged survey maps were used to create artificial sub‑divisions, implicating the applicant in offences under Sections 335, 336, 337, 338 and 318 of the BNS. The defence argued that the FIR was vague, did not attribute any specific overt act to the applicant, and that his involvement was limited to obtaining a provisional layout approval after lawfully acquiring the property, which he later sold. The court examined whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, whether the applicant’s conduct amounted to forgery, and whether custodial interrogation was necessary. Relying on precedents that non‑availability of documents does not ipso facto prove forgery, the court held that the applicant was not directly implicated and granted anticipatory bail with conditions. The order emphasized the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and prohibited tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR discloses a specific cognizable offence against the applicant under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the applicant’s act of seeking a tentative layout approval constitutes an offence of forgery or fraud.
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is justified in the circumstances.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the alleged land fraud.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 335, 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
land fraud
forgery
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
tentative layout
custodial interrogation
EWS housing
MHADA

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.04.18
22:20:55
+0530

Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Cri. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 845 of 2026
Ganesh Baban Gite
Age 41 years, Occu: Business,
Residing at : Row House No.1,
Pokar Colony, Kala Nagar,
Dindori Road, Mhasrul, Nashik. … Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
I/O Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik … Respondent
----
Mr Vivek Salunkhe a/w Mr Jaydeep Vaishampayan, Mr Raviraj
Paramane, for the Applicant.
Ms Sangeeta E Phad, APP, for the Respondent / State.
PI Dr Anchal Moagal, Crime Branch, Nashik.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 18 April 2026
P.C.:
By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in
connection with CR No.64 of 2026, registered at Sarkarwada
Police Station, Nashik, for offences punishable under Sections
335, 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338 and 318(4) read with 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).

2. The first informant in the present crime is the Deputy

Page 1 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

Superintendent of Land Records, Nashik. According to the
prosecution, by virtue of Government Notifications dated 8
November 2013 and 9 January 2017, every residential
development project exceeding 4,000 square meters within the
jurisdiction of the Nashik Municipal Corporation was required
to reserve 20% of its land for housing of Economically Weaker
Sections (‘EWS’) and Low-Income Groups (‘LIG’), to be
allotted through MHADA. In order to circumvent this statutory
obligation, it is alleged that the landowners, project developers,
and their unknown associates prepared fabricated Hissa forms
and forged survey maps to show sub-divisions of large parcels
of land as if they had been lawfully effected prior to the
notification of 8 November 2013. These counterfeit records
bore forged signatures and seals and were submitted to the
Tehsil office to create false and bogus separate 7/12 extracts
without any lawful survey measurement. Upon discovery of
irregularities, the Collector, Nashik, by an order dated 30
September 2024, constituted an inquiry committee. The inquiry
committee examined 108 cases of land fragmentation and
found that, in 49 instances, including land bearing Survey
No.70/1 at Gangapur owned by the applicant, fraudulent
survey maps and fabricated sub-division records had been used
to mislead authorities. It is further alleged that such acts
amount to a calculated deception and forgery, intended to cheat

Page 2 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

the State Government, cause wrongful loss to MHADA, the
Revenue and Land Records Departments, and frustrate the
object of the Inclusive Housing Policy.

3. Mr Vivek Salunkhe, the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicant, while asserting the applicant’s
innocence, submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the
allegations levelled against the applicant are vague, bereft of
material particulars, and lacking in specificity, and do not
disclose the commission of any cognisable offence. The FIR
fails to attribute any specific overt act to the applicant that
constitutes an offence.

4. The learned Counsel further submits that one Kanubhai
Thakkar and Jhyoti Thakkar were the original owners of land
bearing Survey No.70/1 situated at Gangapur. By an order
dated 16 December 2016, passed in RTS Appeal No.93 of
2016, the Tehsildar, Nashik, sanctioned a family partition in
respect of the said land. Pursuant thereto, the Thakkar family
caused a sub-division of the land through the competent
government authority, and the relevant entries were duly
mutated in Form Nos.4 and 12 in the village land records in the
year 2017. Consequent to such sub-division, Survey No.70/1

Page 3 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

was divided into five parts, namely Survey Nos.70/1/1 to
70/1/5, each admeasuring approximately 0.24 hectares, and
owned by Kanubhai Thakkar, Jhyoti Thakkar, Dhara Thakkar,
Dolly Thakkar and Dhawal Thakkar, respectively. However,
owing to an inadvertent omission, the corresponding changes
were not reflected in the 7/12 extract.

5. It is further submitted that on 20 January 2023, the
Thakkar family applied to the Tehsildar for the conversion of
the said agricultural land to non-agricultural use. In the
interregnum, the applicant approached the Thakkar family,
expressing his intention to purchase the portion of land
belonging to Dolly Thakkar, i.e., Survey No. 70/1/4. However,
as the Thakkar family resolved to alienate the entire land
parcel, the applicant, along with three other purchasers,
purchased the entire property under a registered Sale Deed
dated 27 March 2023. Thereafter, by an order dated 13 April
2023, the Tehsildar, Nashik, granted permission for the
conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural
use. The applicant then preferred an application for the
issuance of a separate 7/12 extract for Survey No.70/1/4.
Pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry No.25300 dated 10 January
2024 came to be effected, recording the applicant’s name in the
7/12 extract of the said survey number. Thereafter, the

Page 4 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

applicant approached the Nashik Municipal Corporation and
sought approval for a tentative layout on the said land. By an
order dated 7 April 2025, the Corporation approved the
tentative layout. Owing to the applicant’s inability to undertake
development independently, the said land was subsequently
sold to M/s Happy Home Developers under a registered Sale
Deed dated 8 July 2025.

6. On the strength of the aforesaid sequence of events, the
learned Counsel contends that the allegation of forgery, as
sought to be imputed in the FIR, is wholly untenable. The sub-
division of the original Survey No.70/1 was carried out
pursuant to a valid and subsisting order passed by the Tehsildar,
Nashik, which has neither been challenged nor set aside and has
now attained finality. The corresponding entries in Form Nos.4
and 12 were effected by the office of the land survey authority
itself, and certified copies of the survey map and relevant
records were duly obtained from the competent authority on 3
May 2023. With respect to the contention advanced by the
prosecution that the records in question are not traceable
within the office of the land survey authority, the learned
Counsel submits that the mere non-availability of a document
in official records after the passage of several years from its
issuance does not, ipso facto, render such document forged.

Page 5 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

The mere report of the concerned office that the document is
not traceable cannot, in law, be equated with a finding of
forgery. A document can be characterised as forged only where
specific allegations are made that it falls within the definition of
a ‘forged document’ as contemplated under Section 335 of the
BNS. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed upon the
decision in Vandana Jain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026
INSC 192.

7. Mr Salunkhe further contends that the applicant merely
applied for approval of a tentative layout, which, by its very
nature, is provisional and subject to scrutiny and final sanction
by the competent authority. The development process was at a
preliminary stage, and in the event of any non-compliance with
applicable Government Notification or statutory provisions, the
authority retains the power to refuse final approval. The mere
submission of a proposal for tentative layout does not, in law,
constitute any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further
submitted that the applicant is no longer the owner of the
subject property, having sold the same in July 2025. In the
event of any discrepancy in the tentative layout proposal, the
concerned authority is at liberty to address the same with the
subsequent purchaser and take appropriate corrective measures,
and at present, in the absence of a final approved layout, the

Page 6 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

allegations are premature. The learned Counsel also points out
that in a challenge to the present FIR, the co-accused preferred
Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1567 of 2026, 1412 of 2026, 1568
of 2026 and (st) 7537 of 2026, wherein this Court vide order
dated 17 April 2026, directed the prosecution not to take any
coercive steps.

8. Lastly, it is asserted that the prosecution’s case is founded
entirely on documentary evidence and does not warrant the
applicant’s custodial interrogation. The applicant has deep
roots in society, is not a flight risk and is ready to cooperate
with the investigation and abide by any conditions that this
Court may deem fit to impose, including furnishing his
specimen handwriting and signatures, if so required.

9. On the other hand, Ms Sangeeta Phad, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/
State, opposes the applicant’s request for pre-arrest bail, citing
the seriousness and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that
the case arises out of a large-scale land scam, and a Special
Investigation Team has also been constituted. The Government
Notification dated 8 November 2013 mandates that
landowners/ developers surrender 20% of the land in projects
exceeding 4000 square meters to MHADA for EWS and LIG

Page 7 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

housing. The learned APP contends that the applicant, in
connivance with the co-accused, deliberately circumvented the
requirement to handover 20% of the land by creating artificial
sub-divisions of the larger parcel of land through fabricated
survey maps, forged documents, seals and manipulated layout
plans to portray the projects as being below the prescribed
threshold. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Pratibha
Manchanda vs. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181, to
contend that though the right to liberty and presumption of
innocence are vital, the gravity of the offence must also be
considered while deciding the anticipatory bail application.

10. Ms Phad further submits that the investigation is ongoing,
and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to
obtain specimen handwriting and signatures. The learned APP
also expresses apprehension that, in the event the applicant is
granted bail, there exists a substantial likelihood that he may
tamper with evidence or exert influence over witnesses.

11. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records.

12. At the outset, the allegations in the FIR appear to be
general and omnibus towards all landowners and developers
who allegedly fabricated sub-division records to evade the

Page 8 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

statutory requirement to earmark a portion of land/ property
for EWS and LIG housing. However, at the same time, the
prosecution itself, as reflected from the record, distinguishes
between two classes of accused: first, those allegedly
responsible for the act of illegal sub-division at the stage of
ownership; and second, those who subsequently applied for
and obtained construction permissions or layout approvals
based on such sub-divided parcels. In this context, the core of
the alleged offence lies in the fabrication of Hissa forms, the
falsification of survey maps, and the manipulation of land
records to create artificial sub-division. The applicant’s role
appears to be confined to obtaining a tentative/provisional
layout approval from the competent authority. Furthermore,
there is no material on record to suggest that the applicant had
knowledge of any illegality in the underlying records or that he
engaged in misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, or
collusion so as to secure an unlawful advantage or defeat
statutory requirements. Thus, the allegations against the
applicant appear to be incidental to his subsequent dealings
with the property rather than demonstrative of direct
involvement in the alleged acts.

13. The documents on record indicate that the sub-division of
Survey No.70/1 emerges from an order dated 16 December

Page 9 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

2016 passed by the competent Tehsildar in RTS proceedings,
followed by mutation entries effected by the revenue
authorities upon application by the erstwhile owners.
Significantly, the order of the Tehsildar has attained finality and
no proceedings are initiated to challenge the findings of the
Tehsildar. Consequently, in the absence of any challenge to the
underlying RTS order or mutation entries, these official acts
carry a presumption of validity at this stage. Notably, these acts
precede the applicant’s alleged involvement and are subsequent
to the Government Notification dated 8 November 2013.
Thereafter, the applicant appears to have acquired the property
in 2023 through a registered conveyance, after which he
pursued statutory permissions in the ordinary course, including
non-agricultural conversion and a tentative layout approval. In
this regard, the competent authority’s letter dated 7 April 2025
demonstrates that the tentative layout approval was granted
only for demarcation purposes. Pertinently, the final layout of
the land in question has not been approved to date. Moreover,
the prosecution has failed to attribute any specific overt act to
the applicant that would, prima facie, constitute the ingredients
of the alleged offences. Prima facie, the FIR does not disclose
the precise role played by the applicant in the alleged
preparation or use of forged documents.

Page 10 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

14. The prosecution’s contention that certain documents are
not traceable in the official records does not, by itself, establish
that the documents are forged. In this connection, as held in
Vandana Jain (supra), mere non-availability of documents in
official custody cannot ipso facto lead to an inference of
forgery in the absence of specific material demonstrating
fabrication within the meaning of law. Therefore, the essential
ingredients of forgery are not clearly made out at this stage. On
the contrary, the material on record suggests that the applicant
entered into the transaction as a purchaser under a registered
sale deed and thereafter applied for mutation and tentative
layout approval through lawful channels. The act of seeking a
tentative layout approval, which is inherently provisional and
subject to scrutiny by competent authorities, does not, in itself,
constitute a criminal offence. The applicant’s conduct prima
facie appears to be consistent with that of a bona fide purchaser
acting on the basis of official records. Additionally, it is
undisputed that the applicant has already sold the subject
property to a third party in July 2025. Therefore, the applicant
is no longer in control or possession of the land. In
consequence, this circumstance reduces the likelihood of the
applicant interfering with the subject matter of the alleged
offence or causing further prejudice to the investigation.

Page 11 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

15. The prosecution’s case is predominantly founded on
documentary evidence, which is already in the custody of the
investigating agency. No recovery is sought to be effected from
the applicant. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation is
not warranted, particularly when the applicant has expressed
willingness to co-operate with the investigation and furnish
specimen signatures and handwriting as required. It is brought
to the notice of this Court that in respect of similarly situated
co-accused, this Court has, in its writ jurisdiction, by an order
dated 17 April 2026, directed that no coercive steps be taken.

16. Admittedly, while the allegations pertain to economic
offences of some seriousness, it is well settled that the gravity of
the offence alone cannot be decisive. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the balance tilts in favour of
protecting the applicant’s liberty, particularly when the
prosecution has not demonstrated the necessity of custodial
interrogation. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the
opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of
anticipatory bail. The application, therefore, deserves to be
allowed, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure co-
operation with the investigation. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) In the event of the applicant’s arrest in

Page 12 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 42-ABA-845-2026.docx

CR No.64 of 2026, registered at Sarkarwada
Police Station, Nashik, he shall be released
on bail upon executing a PR Bond of
Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant, himself or through any
other person, shall not tamper with the
evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall attend the
concerned Police Station as and when
required and cooperate with the
investigation, including providing his
handwriting and signature specimen.

17. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are
confined to determining the applicant’s entitlement to pre-
arrest bail only.
[R.N. Laddha, J.]

Page 13 of 13
__________________________________________________

18 April 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…