Bombay High Court
SANTOSH PANDURANG RATHODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the matters raised are civil in nature, no substantive criminal case exists, and therefore bail must be granted to the accused while the intervenors’ applications are dismissed.
Summary
The High Court considered three bail applications filed by Santosh Pandurang Rathod and Ravikant Pandurang Rathod, accused under IPC sections 420, 406 and 34 for alleged fraud in a land sale. The complaints were filed by two complainants who claimed misrepresentation and breach of promise in a property transaction, but the court observed that the dispute was essentially civil, involving recovery of money and specific performance. The complainants had been in judicial custody for over 15 months despite the maximum possible sentence being seven years. The court noted that the complainants could obtain relief in civil court or before the authority under the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, and that criminal proceedings were being used as a pressure tactic. Consequently, the court dismissed the intervenors’ applications and granted bail to all accused, imposing standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under IPC sections 420, 406 and 34 constitute a cognizable offence or are merely a civil dispute.
- Whether bail should be granted after prolonged pre‑trial detention of more than 15 months.
- Whether the complainants can use criminal proceedings to recover civil liabilities.
- Whether the intervenors’ applications seeking to keep the accused in custody should be dismissed.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- civil dispute
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act
- property dispute
- interim application
- intervention
Judgment
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1767 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1988 OF 2026
Santosh Pandurang Rathod .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1780 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2985 OF 2026
Santosh Pandurang Rathod .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4263 OF 2025
Ravikant Pandurang Rathod .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Shailesh S. Kharat Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application
No.1780 of 2026 and Bail Application No.1767 of 2026.
Mr. Sandeep Sawant, Advocate for Intervenor.
Mr. Prasad Arun Kamthe i/b. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, Advocates for
Applicant in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
API Ashwini Patil, Ambegave Police Station, Pune City.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kharat learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail
Application No.1780 of 2026 and Bail Application No.1767 of 2026,
1 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate for Intervenor, Mr. Kamthe learned
Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 and Ms.
Talhar learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 is filed by Applicant – Santosh
Pandurang Rathod who is arraigned as Accused No.2 in CR No.894 of
2024 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for
offenses punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 concerning an alleged transaction of sale / conveyance of
land dated 01.01.2021. First Information Report is filed on 25.10.2024
and he was arrested on 28.05.2025. Interim Application No.1988 of
2026 is filed in Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 by one Mangal
Govind Sahaje. She is Intervenor / Complainant / First Informant. She
is heard.
3. Facts qua both Complainants are different. However they pertain
to property dealt with by both Accused persons in the same layout area
with the Complainants through their Company.
4. Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 is filed by Applicant – Santosh
Pandurang Rathod who is arraigned as Accused No.2 in CR No.893 of
2024 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for
offenses punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 concerning an alleged transaction of sale / conveyance of
land dated 01.01.2021. First Information Report is filed on 25.10.2024
2 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
and he was arrested on 28.05.2025. Interim Application No.2985 of
2026 is filed in Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 by one Ratnaprabha
Jaysingh Mate. She is Intervenor / Complainant / First Informant. She
is heard.
5. Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 if filed by Applicant – Ravikant
Pandurang Rathod who is arraigned as Accused No.1 in CR No.894 of
2024 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for
offenses punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 concerning an alleged transaction of sale / conveyance of
land dated 01.01.2021. First Information Report is filed on 25.10.2024
and he was arrested on 28.05.2025.
6. Both Applicants i.e. Santosh Pandurang Rathod and Ravikant
Pandurang Rathod have been in judicial custody for more that 15
months. The maximum punishment which would be attributable to the
Applicants even if they are convicted would be upto 7 years. Be that as
it may, what is intriguing is that this is a purely civil lis. Even while the
matter is argued, Complainants represented by learned Advocate Mr.
Sawant has submitted to the Court that if Complainant monies are
returned, Complainant would have no grievance with the Applicants.
7. Unfortunately this Court’s consideration is on the basis of the facts
made out in the case before Court and not on the basis of the
Complainant’s desire to settle scores and make recovery from the
3 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
Applicants by resorting to filing a criminal case. Prima facie it is seen
that the layout of the plots was effected by Applicants and sold to more
that 21 persons out of which Complainant in CR No.894 of 2024 is one
such person. The Complainant’s apprehension is that there is improper
demarcation of 2 – 3 Gat Nos. on the basis of which a certain Gat
Number which belongs to the Government is a Gat Number on which
part of the layout is designed. However with regard to this allegation
by the Complainant, there is no sanction or issue raised by the
Government and the Complaint is filed on apprehension and some
village maps are relied upon.
8. The Complainant is well entrenched and staying in her bungalow
/ farmhouse which is already constructed and handed over to her and
is a member of the Cooperative Housing Society but on the basis of
mere apprehension that Government may in future take action
criminal complaint is filed. In any event as far as the lis is concerned,
this is a purely civil dispute and has no element of criminality
whatsoever in it. Even otherwise since the Complainant is already in
possession of the property, she can always approach the appropriate
Civil Court and seek injunctive reliefs in accordance with law if there is
any threat as envisaged by her. The unfortunate part is that the
Complainant, despite being a member of the Cooperative Housing
Society which was originally conceived and developed by Applicant is
residing in her Bungalow as a member of the Society. Even otherwise if
4 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
she has any dispute, her remedy lies before the Competent Authority
established under the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 by
filing an appropriate dispute application in accordance with law. There
are Memorandum of Understanding and Agreements which are
registered and she can take recourse to law while seeking appropriate
reliefs. In the second CR No.893 of 2024, complainant is alleging
breach of promise and seeks specific performance from Accused
persons.
9. The Applicants have spent 15 months pre–trial incarceration.
Such facts and circumstances enable me to decide these 3 Bail
Applications forthwith as arguable case is made out by Mr. Kharat.
Custody of Applicant is not required. They both can stand trial and
cooperate with the investigation.
10. Case of Complainant in First Information Report bearing No.894
of 2024 is that Santosh Pandurang Rathod and Ravikant Pandurang
Rathod misrepresented to her by including 33 Guntas of land in Gat
No.146 which was Government land when only Gat No.144 was
owned by them, took approximately Rs.48.25 lakhs and built a
farmhouse / bungalow near backwaters of Bhatghar Dharana Dam
through their company Greenway Developers. The said Complainant is
already in possession of her farmhouse / bungalow and is a member of
the Cooperative Housing Society therein.
5 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
11. In so far as First Information Report bearing No.893 of 2024 is
concerned, the Complainant therein has alleged that both Santosh
Pandurang Rathod and Ravikant Pandurang Rathod through their
company Greenway Developers agreed to sell 89 Guntas of land for
Rs.32 lakhs to her but executed registered Sale Deed for 23 Guntas
only and did not convey balance land. In the First Information Report,
statement, Complainant has stated that either balance land be
conveyed or if not so conveyed then Rs.19.50 lakhs should be returned
to her. Hence she filed the complaint and registered First Information
Report. In so far as case of the Complainant is concerned, it is based on
her statement in the complaint and the amount she has given to
Greenway Developers through both accused persons. She has alleged
breach of promise. Hence the criminality can only be proved at trial, if
any. The tenor of statement in First Information Report is such that
criminal proceedings are invoked as a matter of pressure tactics by
Complainant. If Complainant was that much concerned she should not
have accepted and executed registered conveyance for 23 Guntas and
insisted upon 89 Guntas and in normal parlance any prudent person
would have addressed a letter / legal notice to the Developer for the
balance area. Nothing of that sort is done.
12. Mr. Sawant has argued on the basis that if consideration amount
is returned back to Complainant then she will have no grievance. The
Criminal Court and Bail proceedings cannot be allowed to be used for
6 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
recovery and settlement per se. The Complainant has also alleged that
Greenway Developers received Rs.5 lakhs from her sister and did not
deliver the land to her. The sister has not filed any complaint.
According to Complainant, certain land was purchased by accused
persons in 2021 and it was agreed to be transferred to the
Complainant and therefore Complainant paid Applicants Rs.32 lakhs.
This entire transaction is therefore a civil dispute for which
Complainant could have approached the Civil Court and filed
appropriate proceedings qua the subject land in question and obtained
appropriate injunctive reliefs.
13. In the facts of both aforesaid cases by the Complainants, prima
facie both Complainants have approached the Criminal Court by
intervention to seek recovery of their amounts which cannot be
permitted. Their lis is purely civil in nature. I have heard both Interim
Applications of Complainants and in view of above reasons,
comprehensively dismiss their Intervention Applications. Needless to
state that both Complainants are at liberty to approach the Civil Court
for recovery or any injunctive relief that may be available to them in
accordance with law.
14. In view of the above, all 3 Bail Applications filed by both accused
persons in First Information Report CR No.893 of 2024 and First
Information Report CR No.894 of 2024 are allowed. Both Intervention
7 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
Applications are dismissed.
15. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant – Accused No.1 - Ravikant Pandurang Rathod
in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
C.R. No.894 of 2024 and C.R. No.893 of 2024;
(ii) Applicant – Accused No.1 - Ravikant Pandurang Rathod
in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/-
each (Rs. Twenty Five each only) with one or two
sureties of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant – Accused No.2 - Santosh Pandurang Rathod
in Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 and Bail
Application No.1780 of 2026 in connection with C.R.
No.894 of 2024 and C.R. No.893 of 2024 is directed to
be immediately released from prison in connection with
both First Information Reports bearing numbers C.R.
No.894 of 2024 and C.R. No.893 of 2024;
(iv) Applicant – Accused No.2 – Santosh Pandurang Rathod
in Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 and Bail
Application No.1780 of 2026 is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each (Rs.
8 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
Twenty Five each only) with one or two sureties of the
like amount;
(v) Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, once every month on
the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m.;
(vi) Applicants 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;
(vii) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(viii)Applicants shall not influence with any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(ix) Applicants 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; and
(x) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicants.
16. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in the
way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the submissions
9 of 10
22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc
made and the material placed before this Court.
17. Bail Application Nos.1767 of 2026, 1780 of 2026 and 4263
of 2025 are allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Interim
Application Nos.1988 of 2026 and 2985 of 2025 are dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Amberkar
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date: 2026.08.26
12:25:45 +0530
10 of 10
Checking your session…