Bombay High Court

RAMAKANT RAMPRAVESH RAIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 17 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that the applicant, having only a peripheral role and being a student, is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the CrPC.

Summary

The applicant, a student, was arrested as Accused No.4 in a case involving the preparation of false surety documents to secure his father's release. The prosecution alleged his participation in forgery and conspiracy alongside co‑accused Haribhau and Sunil Kambale, who prepared forged Aadhar and ration cards and impersonated another person. The applicant contended that he merely accompanied the co‑accused and had no active role in creating or signing the false documents. The court examined the evidence, noted the applicant's peripheral involvement, his long pre‑trial detention of 23 months, and his academic commitments. Considering these factors, the court granted bail under Section 439 of the CrPC with specific conditions. The bail order was disposed of accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC despite allegations of participation in forgery and conspiracy.
Whether the applicant's alleged role is sufficient to attract the offences under IPC sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120‑B and 34.
Whether the conditions imposed for bail are appropriate and lawful.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
Section 439 CrPC
forgery
conspiracy
false surety
student
IPC sections 420
IPC sections 465
IPC sections 467
IPC sections 468
IPC sections 471
IPC section 120-B
IPC section 34

Judgment

32 ba 1638 of 2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1638 OF 2025

Ramakant Rampravesh Rai .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
(Through Shivajinagar Police Station, Pune) .. Respondent

....................
 Mr. Manish Tomar, Advocate for Applicant.
 Ms. Sangeeta Phad, APP for the Respondent – State.
................…

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 17, 2026

P. C.:

1. Heard Mr. Tomar, learned Advocate for the Applicant and

Ms. Phad, learned APP for the Respondent–State .

2. The Applicant in the present case is arraigned as Accused No.4.

The other accused persons are released on bail. The case of the

prosecution stems from the fact that Applicant, in order to arrange
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
surety for the sake of release of his father, came in touch with the
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2026.08.18
16:50:10 Advocate on record who was appearing for his father, and two persons
+0530

who are arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Haribhau

Kambale and Sunil Kambale who were the persons who carried out the

Rajeshri Aher

1 of 7
32 ba 1638 of 2025.odt

operation. Haribhau Kambale required his son Sunil Kambale to

impersonate as Sunil Gavhane, in order to give the false surety.

3. Case of the prosecution, qua the role of Haribhau Kambale is

distinct to the extent that he prepared the false documents, namely,

the Aadhar card and ration card, for the purpose of filling up the

surety affidavit/form. Whereas, the case of the prosecution qua Sunil

Kambale is to the extent of he having impersonated as Sunil Mohan

Gavhane for the purpose of giving surety before the Court for release

of Applicant’s father.

4. Insofar as the Applicant before me is concerned, the case of the

prosecution is based upon witness statement recorded, copy of which

is appended at page 55, to the extent of he being roped in the crime.

Though, the learned prosecutor has argued vehemently that his surety

was presented on 27th February, 2023, whereas the FIR was lodged

after investigation was completed on 31st July, 2024 and the Applicant

was arrested on 3rd October, 2024, as he was shown as absconding.

However, insofar as the specific role attributed to the Applicant is

concerned, he was very much present in the Court when the bail

hearing of his father was underway and he had accompanied the other

co–accused person Haribhau Kambale.

Rajeshri Aher

2 of 7
32 ba 1638 of 2025.odt

5. The Applicant is a student. The learned Advocate has placed

before me the educational credentials of the Applicant i.e. the

provisional admit card of 2024-25 when the Applicant came to be

arrested. At that time he was a student of the Veer Bahadur Singh

Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, and it is but natural

that when the father of Applicant was arrested, he was the person who

came down to Pune to secure his release.

6. This Court incidentally had an occasion to consider the present

Bail Application on 24th April, 2025, and had passed the following

order:

“1. Heard Mr. Awasthi, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Gajare - Shilpa, learned APP for Respondent - State.

2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking Regular Bail in connection with
C.R.No.194 of 2024 registered with Shvaji Nagar Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'IPC').

3. There are 2 Accused persons in the present crime. Applicant was
arrested on 03.10.2024. According to the prosecution case,
Applicant is a conspirator alongwith co-accused person namely
Mr. Haribhau and they have actively indulged themselves in
preparing fofged document, rather prepared false surety
document and submitted the said surety document for
facilitating the release of the father of Applicant from prison.
Rajeshri Aher

3 of 7
32 ba 1638 of 2025.odt

4. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant would
persuade me to consider the FIR and the basic facts emanating
therefrom to contend that in so far as Applicant is concerned
even according to prosecution case, it will be seen that he had
only accompanied the co-accused person and he has played no
active role whatsoever in preparation of the alleged false surety
document nor he has signed on any document to facilitate the
release of his father from prison by filing the false surety
document.

5. He would submit that merely because of his association with the
other co-accused person and he having accompanied him,
Applicant has been charged with the offences, but according to
him neither of the Sections and provisions of the IPC would be
applicable and leviable against Applicant in present facts of the
case. He would submit that investigation is complete and
charge-sheet has been filed. He would submit that role of
present Applicant is prima facie distinct with the role of other
co-accused person who had infact procured the alleged false and
fabricated surety document as also submitted it to the Court for
facilitating the release of his father from prison.

6. Ms. Gajare Dhumal, learned APP is directed to take appropriate
instructions and ascertain the veracity of the aforesaid
submissions made by Mr. Awasthi and accordingly apprise the
precise role of the Applicant in the present case on the next
adjourned date to enable the Court to consider the role of the
Applicant for grant of bail.

Rajeshri Aher

4 of 7
32 ba 1638 of 2025.odt

7. Learned Advocate for Applicant would submit that the other co-
accused person has already been granted bail.

8. The aforesaid fact can also be verified by the learned prosecutor
and informed to the Court on the next adjourned date.

9. Advocate for Applicant is directed to serve a copy of the
Application on Ms. Gajare - Dhumal forthwith.

10. List the Bail Application on Board on 4th July, 2025.”

7. In view of the above, the Applicant deserves to be released on

bail, considering the role attributable to him as also his long

incarceration for 23 months and the fact that he is a student of Faculty

of Arts, so as to enable him to be given an opportunity to complete his

studies.

8. The Applicant has therefore made out a case for grant of bail.

Bail is granted. The Application is allowed on the following terms:-

(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from

prison in connection with C.R. No. 194 of 2024;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing

P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one

surety of the like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Shivajinagar Police Station, once in three month on the first

Rajeshri Aher

5 of 7
32 ba 1638 of 2025.odt

Monday of the first month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;

(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted

and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it

will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;

(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of

his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of

residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as

applicable;

(viii) The Applicant shall keep himself available on mobile

phone;

(ix) The Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail

security in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only),

for a period of four weeks, in lieu of surety. He shall furnish the

surety on or before expiry of the said period;

(viii) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation

of bail granted to the Applicant.

Rajeshri Aher

6 of 7
32 ba 1638 of 2025.odt

Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above

terms.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Rajeshri Aher

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…