Bombay High Court
NANASAHEB SHANKARRAO GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
Nanasaheb Shankarrao Gaikwad, a 75‑year‑old accused, sought regular bail for offences of cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the IPC, the Registration Act and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act. The prosecution alleged that he and family members forged a part Occupation Certificate to lease a building to SBI and that the FIR was filed after an unexplained three‑year delay. The applicant argued lack of direct evidence, the delay in investigation, his advanced age, and the right to a speedy trial, while the complainant highlighted his multiple criminal antecedents and risk of re‑offending. The court noted the delay, absence of prima facie evidence linking the applicant to the forgery, and his deep roots in society, and held that bail should be granted with strict conditions. The bail order was issued, and the intervening application for a stay was rejected.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting bail to an elderly accused incarcerated for over two years for cheating and forgery offences.
- Whether the three‑year delay in filing the FIR and the lack of direct evidence justify bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of re‑offending, tampering with witnesses, or absconding.
- Applicability of Section 21(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act in this case.
- The relevance of the applicant's prior criminal antecedents in denying bail.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(B), 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — s. 21(5), 3(1)(ii), 3(4)
- Registration Act — s. 82, 83
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- forgery
- occupation certificate
- MCOC Act
- right to speedy trial
- criminal antecedents
- elderly accused
- bail conditions
Judgment
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1588 OF 2026
Nanasaheb Shankarrao Gaikwad .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1787 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1588 OF 2026
Muktai Ganesh Gaikwad .. Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Nanasaheb Shankarrao Gaikwad .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe,
Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Satish Maneshinde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Vishwanath Patil,
Advocate for Complainant.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.
API Dhawatle, Crime Branch, Pune present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant;
Mr. Maneshinde, learned Senior Advocate for Complainant and Ms.
Phad, learned APP for Respondent – State.
1 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
2. This is an Application seeking regular bail filed by Applicant,
who is 75 years old and who has been incarcerated for the past more
than 2 years in the present crime. The date of arrest of Applicant is
19.08.2021.
3. Applicant is incarcerated in connection with Crime No.777 of
2023, registered with Chaturshrungi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’); Sections 82 and 83 of
Registration Act and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control
of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘MCOC Act’).
4. Before I advert to the submissions made by the learned
Senior Advocates at the bar, since this Bail Application has been
vehemently opposed by the Complainant who is the First Informant -
Officer of the Pune Municipal Corporation, certain facts are required to
be put in perspective.
5. Case of the prosecution is that during the period 15.12.2020
to 30.10.2023, accused persons in the present case who are all family
members of Applicant, Applicant being the patriarch of the family have
in furtherance of their common intention, hatched a conspiracy and
have forged a part Occupation Certificate of the building constructed
over Survey No.127/1A to 1E, Plot No.108, Aundh, Pune, the land
which was owned by Applicant.
2 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
6. Case of the prosecution stems from the fact that the said
forged Occupation Certificate was used by Applicant and his family
members for leasing the said constructed building to the State Bank of
India and pocketing a handsome security deposit as also lease rentals.
On these allegations, FIR has been lodged. At the outset, it needs to be
noted and stated that Applicant has been incarcerated for the past
more than 6 years in continuity and for more than 2 years in the
present offence.
7. Mr. Pasbola, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant would
submit that Applicant is admittedly the owner of the land and property
which was constructed upon through his Architect and
Commencement Certificate was issued thereafter and part Occupation
Certificate of Ground +1 was received by the concerned Architect. He
would submit that Architect thereafter submitted further plans for
construction of floor Nos.2 to 6 for which sanction and Occupation
Certificate has also been issued.
7.1. He would submit that perusal of the charge-sheet prima facie
shows that there is no direct or indirect evidence attributable to the
role of Applicant in he having procured or fabricated the forged
Occupation Certificate. He would submit that there is an inordinate
delay, rather unexplained delay of more than 3 years in filing the FIR
by Complainant. He would submit that contents as stated in the FIR
3 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
registered on 30.10.2023 are contrary to the Complainant's statement
recorded on 10.04.2025.
7.2. He would submit that in the FIR, it is stated that on
inspection of the Leave and License Agreement executed with the State
Bank of India, the officer of the Municipal Corporation came to know
about the issue of cheating and forgery but the supplementary
statement of the Complainant recorded on 10.04.2025 proceeds on the
basis that the said complaint had been filed at the behest of one Mukta
Gaikwad, who is the estranged daughter-in-law of Applicant who had
made a complaint to the Pune Municipal Corporation.
7.3. He would submit that Applicant's son and daughter-in-law
are embroiled in a bitter litigation and within a span of 2 to 3 months
in the year 2021, 12 to 13 complaints/criminal reports have been
registered against Applicant and his family members.
7.4. On the previous date of hearing, Mr. Pasbola was directed to
place on record the antecedents of Applicant. Today, at the time of
making further submissions, in all fairness, he has placed on record a
chart depicting the details of the 12 antecedents recorded against
Applicant under various provisions of the IPC mostly in Chaturshrungi,
Hinjewadi and Sangvi Police Stations.
7.5. It is seen that all these reports and complaints are filed in the
year 2021 between June 2021 and August 2021. It is argued by Mr.
4 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
Pasbola that the precursor to filing of these 10 out of the 12 complaints
in a span of 2 to 3 months goes back to the dispute between his son
and his estranged wife which is otherwise going on before the Civil
Courts and incidentally involved the very property for which the
present offence is registered. He would submit that for the offence of
alleged tampering and forgery of Occupation Certificate that has been
levied against Applicant, offences under the MCOC Act could not and
cannot be invoked at all.
7.6. He would submit that in the list of antecedents, there is an
offence dated 15.12.2020 which is the only case regarding MCOC
offence and there are no other cases whatsoever as far as Applicant is
concerned. Therefore, based on that sole case, offences under the
MCOC Act MCOC could not be invoked at all. He would submit that
Application of the provisions of Section 21(5) cannot be applied to
Applicant's case as on the date of offence, more than one charge-sheet
was not pending in the preceding 10 years against the Applicant. He
would therefore submit that incorrect Application of the provisions of
the MCOC Act has been done in the present case.
7.7. In support of his submissions, he would refer to and rely
upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors. 1 and Mahipal Singh
1 (2008) 13 SCC 5
5 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.2. He would draw my
attention to paragraph Nos.62 and 63 of the decision in the case of
Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors. (supra) with regard to his submission
about there being more than one charge-sheet against Applicant
pending in the preceding 10 years which is not the case.
7.8. He would next submit that Applicant being 75 years old this
Court should consider the entire total length of Applicant's
incarceration in prison for a period of over 6 years in continuity as long
incarceration and release Applicant on bail.
8. PER CONTRA, Mr. Maneshinde, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the First Informant/Complainant which is the Pune
Municipal Corporation would at the outset draw my attention to the
Affidavit-in-Reply dated 01.09.2025 filed by the First Informant
appended at page No.919 and make the following submissions:-
8.1. He would submit that Applicant’s case should not be
considered on the ground of long incarceration at all in view of
Applicant having been involved in many offences and therefore no
ground whatsoever can be countenanced for release of Applicant on
bail. He would submit that two years period of Applicant cannot be
considered as long incarceration as Applicant is involved in serious
offences committed under MCOC Act.
2 (2014) 11 SCC 282
6 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
8.2. He would submit that Applicant is involved in serious cases
of land grabbing which is his primary business in Pune and therefore
looking at his antecedents, this Court should not be lenient at all in
enlarging Applicant on bail, since there is every likelihood that he will
re-offend himself, influence and tamper with witnesses as also
evidence for his own benefit considering his prowess.
8.3. He would vehemently submit that long incarceration can be
considered only if the trial is delayed and on this ground it is the
Applicant who is responsible for the delay of his trial. He would submit
that Applicant has repeatedly filed Applications before the Trial Court
and the latest Application is for seeking discharge. He would submit
that before the Trial Court, present case is kept for framing of charge
and the Applicant should co-operate with the Trial Court rather than
seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other. He would seek to
refer to and rely upon the Roznama with regard to his submission of
the Applicant delaying the trial.
8.4. Next, he would submit that the offence of 471 IPC is
punishable with life imprisonment since Applicant is guilty of cheating
a public body of the subject property in question and therefore he
cannot seek bail nor be entitled to bail in such cases. Next, he would
draw my attention to paragraph No.11 of the Bail Application
contending that Applicant has come to the Court with unclean hands
7 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
by suppressing his antecedents and therefore on this ground alone
Applicant should be denied bail. He would also refer to and rely upon
paragraph No.9 in the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the First Informant as
also paragraph No.16 of Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the prosecution
which are appended to the Application which prima facie show that
Applicant has serious antecedents.
8.5. On merits, he would draw my attention to the statement of
an independent witness, namely an estate agent which has been
recorded by the prosecution, copy of which is appended at page
No.362 of the Application to contend that the modus operandi
followed by Applicant was such that he has cheated a public body like
the Municipal Corporation by forging the part Occupation Certificate
itself and thereby having used it for generating money when the
Corporation had not issued the same.
8.6. Mr. Maneshinde, however in his usual fair-mindedness
informed the Court that subsequently the full Occupation Certificate
has been duly issued by the Municipal Corporation for the very same
building. However, he would submit that even though this fact may
otherwise enure to the benefit of Applicant's case, but the fact that
Applicant had tampered with and forged a part of the Occupation
Certificate granted by the Municipal Corporation previously cannot be
wished away and Applicant cannot be exonerated and pardoned for
8 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
such an act of cheating and forgery.
8.7. He would vehemently harp upon the fact that when
Applicant approached this Court by way of Bail Application, he is
required to make true disclosure of his antecedents and he not having
made and paragraph No.11 having been kept blank itself shows the
demeanor of the Applicant of approaching the Court with unclean
hands and attempting to suppress his antecedents. He would submit
that an argument is also advanced by Applicant for seeking bail on
medical grounds in view of his old age and infirmity of Applicant.
However, he would submit that the only material available on record is
a medical report which is a prisoner's medical report which was issued
six months before and if at all this Court is inclined to even consider
this request made by Applicant's Advocate to grant bail on medical
grounds, then in that case, a prisoner's medical report to ascertain his
current health status in jail is required to be called for by the Court for
consideration before determining this Application.
8.8. Finally, while relying upon the decisions of the Supreme
Court and the Delhi High Court in the case of Jayshree Kanabar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.3 and Sameer Mahandru Vs. Directorate
of Enforcement 4 he would submit that the twin conditions with regard
to satisfaction of the Court that Applicant has not committed the crime
3 (2025) 2 SCC 797
4 2023 SCC OnLine Del. 6680
9 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
and that the Applicant will not re-offend himself and present himself
for trial are required to be satisfied in the present case. He would
submit that these twin conditions are such that looking at the
background of Applicant, there is every likelihood that he is bound to
re-offend himself and revisit the offences in question.
8.9. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, he would persuade
the Court to reject the Bail Application of Applicant.
9. Ms. Phad, learned Prosecutor for the State has adopted the
submissions made by Mr. Maneshinde and in addition thereto would
draw my attention to the decision in the case of Bharat Shantilal Shah
and Ors. (supra) referred to by Applicant. She would submit that
considering the criminal antecedents of Applicant, the twin conditions
are not only required to be satisfied by him, but the applicability of
Section 21(4) is clearly made out on the basis of the gravity of the
offence as Applicant is an economic offender and he is indicted in
serious offences. She would also therefore persuade the Court to reject
the Bail Application of Applicant.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
Senior Advocates for the respective parties and the submissions have
received due consideration.
11. At the outset, I need to clarify that this is a Bail Application
and not adjudication of the criminal liability of the Applicant before
10 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
me. Applicant is 75 years old. He is indicted for offences of cheating
and forgery. First Informant is the Municipal Corporation. Charge is
that part Occupation Certificate is forged by the Applicant and on the
basis of this forged Occupation Certificate, Applicant executed a Leave
and License Agreement with the prospective licensee. To levy such a
charge of Applicant having forged the part Occupation Certificate,
there has to be direct evidence or at least some indirect evidence of his
participation that undoubtedly can be determined at trial since the
burden on proof would initially lie on the prosecution. Prima facie,
there is unexplained delay of more than 3 years in filing the FIR and
there is a dichotomy observed in the contents of the FIR registered on
30.10.2023 and the supplementary statement dated 10.04.2025.
Insofar as cheating is concerned, that also would be a matter of trial
because the role of the Applicant would have to be attributed and
proved by the prosecution. More than 2 years have passed and there is
no sign of commencement of trial. The vehemence with which the
learned Senior Advocate for the Complaint – Corporation has argued
the present matter in a dictatorial fashion is not understood by the
Court neither it is appreciated by the Court. He has constantly and
repeatedly harped upon the antecedents of Applicant to argue that bail
should be rejected. This Court is not oblivious to the reason for such
hostility and vehemence shown by the Municipal Corporation. It is the
very same Municipal Corporation who has subsequently issued a Full
11 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
Occupation Certificate with respect to the same building for which the
present complaint qua a forged Occupation Certificate has been filed.
Such double standards of the Corporation cannot be kept under wraps
especially in the facts and circumstances of the Applicant’s case before
me.
12. There is a long running feud between the Applicant and his
son on one side and his daughter-in-law on the other side. She has
filed an Interim Application No.1787 of 2026 in this Bail Application
itself to oppose the bail but has consciously chosen not to appear.
Therefore the vehemence of the Corporation who is the First Informant
is quite understandable. This Court cannot be shaken by superfluous
arguments advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Corporation. The job of the Advocates at the bar is to argue their cases
in such applications and leave the decision at the discretion of the
Court. The Court cannot be dictated as to what should be the final
outcome and order at the time of making submissions which is
attempted to be done by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Corporation.
13. Insofar as the preset case is concerned, I am not at all in
agreement with the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate
for the First Informant – Complainant for more than one reason. All
that I have to be convinced with is whether the Applicant who has
12 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
been incarcerated for more than 2 years will stand to trial and there is
a reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of the offence.
The part Occupation Certificate is not a document which can be
procured by a party across the counter. The Architect of the Developer
is the intermediary for procuring the same, the question as to who is at
fault, who procured it, how it was procured will be answered at trial.
Insofar as the issue of re-offending is concerned, Applicant can be put
to stringent conditions while on bail and if he commits any infraction
of the bail conditions the prosecution can always approach the Court
for appropriate orders. The question of expeditious disposal of trials
comes to the fore. It is a well settled principle of our criminal law
jurisprudence that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception".
14. At this juncture, I deem it appropriate to list certain
observations of the Supreme Court shedding light on concerns
underlying the “Right to speedy trial” from the point of view of an
accused in custody whose liberty is affected. The Supreme Court has
held that right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all
stages of trial which are inclusive of investigation and there is no
reason for courts to take a restricted view. In the case of Abdul Rehman
Antulay & Ors. Vs R.S. Nayak & Anr.5 the Supreme Court held as
under:-
5 1992 (1) SCC 225
13 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
“86. In view of the above discussion, the following propositions
emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that
these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all
situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules.
These propositions are:
(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of
the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried
speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The
fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves
the societal interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right
of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt
or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible
in the circumstances.
(2) Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses
all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has
understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted
view.
(3) The concerns underlying the Right to speedy trial from the
point of view of the accused are:
(a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be
as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be
subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to
his conviction;
(b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation
and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation,
inquiry or trial should be minimal; and
(c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of
the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death,
disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise.
(4) – (11) -------x-------” (emphasis supplied)
15. In the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed for
the offences charged. No further custody or custodial interrogation is
required. It is prima facie seen that 10 out of the 12 offenses registered
against the Applicant are within a span of 2 – 3 months in the year
2021, the present is one more such offence which though occurred in
2020 was registered after a hiatus of 3 and half years in 2023. I am of
the opinion that issues between parties should not lead the parties to
14 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
use criminal proceedings to settle scores.
16. Restricting myself to the offence in question of cheating and
forgery, the Applicant being 75 years old and incarcerated for more
than 2 years in the present crime and in continuity with the other
offences for more than 6 years, investigation being complete in the
present offence, chargsheet having been filed, no direct role being
attributed to the Applicant as to how he committed the offence of
cheating and forgery qua the part Occupation Certificate, later issuance
of Final Occupation Certificate by the Municipal Corporation for the
very same building for obvious reasons despite the Applicant being in
custody in order to aid and assist the daughter–in–law of the
Applicant, the trial not having commenced and for that mater would
take a long time to conclude persuade me to grant the present Bail
Application. Neither there is any chance of Applicant absconding since
he has deep roots in society and not a flight risk.
17. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Nanasaheb Shankarrao Gaikwad is directed
to be immediately released from prison in connection
with CR. No.777 of 2023 unless wanted and required to
be kept in jail for any other offence;
15 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall ensure that he shall attend the Trial
Court, if called upon by the Court unless specifically
exempted. and his Advocate shall remain present on all
dates of trial before the Trial Court during trial;
Applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any
such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of bail;
(iv) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(v) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vi) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current residential address and mobile telephone
number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating
Officer of any change in his residential address or
mobile telephone number, as and when such change
occurs; and
16 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
(vii) Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
18. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
19. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
20. In view of disposal of Bail Application, pending Interim
Application No.1787 of 2026 is accordingly disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
21. After this bail order is pronounced in Court today, Mr.
Maneshinde, learned Senior Advocate for the Complainant/First
Informant gives an Application on behalf of the Complainant/First
Informant seeking stay of the order for a period of four weeks to
enable the Complainant/First Informant to approach the Superior
Court to test the validity and legality of this order.
17 of 18
59.BA.1588.2026.doc
22. I have taken that Application which is filed by the Junior
Engineer of the Pune Municipal Corporation dated 16.09.2026 and
considered the same after going through the same. However, in view of
the findings which are returned and rendered by me in my order for
grant of bail to the Applicant in the present case, I am not inclined to
consider the said Application for stay. The said Application of the
Complainant/First Informant seeking stay of my order stands rejected.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.17
15:39:53 +0530
18 of 18
Checking your session…