Bombay High Court
KARTIK SANJAY BEMBDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Holding
The court enlarged bail to the applicant, finding that the evidence did not warrant continued detention.
Summary
The applicant, Kartik Sanjay Bembde, was arrested for alleged forgery of orders purportedly issued by the Revenue Minister, charged under Sections 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 238 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He sought bail after a lower court rejected his earlier application. The prosecution argued a prima facie case, citing witness statements that the applicant had shown forged orders on his laptop and admitted to forging them. The defence contended that the co‑accused, whose mobile contained the forged order, was not charge‑sheeted and that there was no material linking the applicant to the crime, emphasizing his clean record. The bench noted the lack of conclusive evidence, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the applicant’s prolonged incarceration, and therefore granted bail with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the observations were limited to the bail application and the trial court would decide the case on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the forgery offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant based on the evidence presented.
- Whether the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation outweighs the applicant's right to bail.
- Whether the non‑charge‑sheeting of the co‑accused and lack of material evidence justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 238 r/w 3(5), 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338
Subjects
- bail
- forgery
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- prima facie case
Judgment
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 5_BA_21_2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2026
Kartik Sanjay Bembde …Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Keral Mehta, for the Applicant.
Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent - State.
PSI – Andurlekar, Vishnunagar Police Station, present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 17TH JANUARY 2026
PC:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his
enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 544 of 2025
dated 19th October, 2025, registered with the Vishnunagar
Police Station, Dombivli, for the offences punishable under
Sections 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 238 r/w 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).
2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that
the Applicant along with the co-accused are alleged to have
prepared forged orders purported to have been passed by the
Page 1 of 7
th
17 January 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 5_BA_21_2026.doc
Revenue Minister of State of Maharashtra and the Section
Officer, along with their signature, stamp and seal. The said
offence was revealed on the report of the Revenue Officer
(SDM), Kalyan. Accordingly, the FIR was registered. The
Applicant was arrested on 20th October 2025. Initially, one
Rhythm Mhatre was also arrested along with the Applicant.
However, charge-sheet was filed only against the present
Applicant.
3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, Dist. Thane,
however, by order dated 16th December 2025, the said
application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant has filed the
present Bail Application for the reliefs as prayed.
4. Mr. Mundargi, learned counsel for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant has not committed the alleged
offence and this is a case of false implication. In fact, the
order purported to be the forged order, was found on the
mobile phone of the co-accused Rhythm, who was earlier
Page 2 of 7
th
17 January 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 5_BA_21_2026.doc
shown to be an accused but dropped from the charge-sheet.
He submits that the present Applicant is made a scapegoat. He
submits that the police have recovered only his laptop and
mobile and nothing was retrieved from the said laptop. He
submits that apart from the said laptop there is no material on
record to indicate complicity of the Applicant in the present
offence. In any case, he submits that the Applicant is a 25-
year-old law graduate and has no criminal antecedents. Thus,
he prays that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Ms. Bhosale, learned APP representing the State,
resists the Bail Application. She submits that a prima facie
case is clearly made out against the Applicant. She submits
that there are two witnesses who have recorded their
statement with the police stating that they saw an order on
the laptop of the Applicant and the Applicant himself told
them that he was forging the said orders and, in their
presence, the Applicant also printed the said orders. She
submits that the offence is serious and the Applicant has
Page 3 of 7
th
17 January 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 5_BA_21_2026.doc
forged the signature of the revenue minister and has also
affixed the stamp and seal of the State Government. She
further submits that there is a possibility of tampering with
the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Therefore, she
prays that the application be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the record of the case with their
assistance.
7. Although there is a specific allegation against the
Applicant that he along with the co-accused prepared the
forged order of the Revenue Minister, affixing the seal and
signature, it is quite discerning that the co-accused has not
been charge-sheeted. In fact, from the statement of the
complainant it is revealed that it is the co-accused who sent
the order from his mobile to the First Informant. Yet, the said
order was not recovered or retrieved from the said mobile
phone, and even though the order is recovered from the
mobile phone, it appears that he is not charge-sheeted.
Page 4 of 7
th
17 January 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 5_BA_21_2026.doc
8. The statement of witnesses as pointed out by Ms.
Bhosale, albeit records that the Applicant himself showed
them some orders, however, it is not ascertained at this stage
as to the nature of that order and whether the said text in the
laptop was in fact the subject order, purported to have been
forged. Admittedly, there are no criminal antecedents against
the present Applicant. He has already suffered incarceration
since 20th October 2025 and no purpose will be served by his
continued incarceration.
9. In these circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge
the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
Page 5 of 7
th
17 January 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 5_BA_21_2026.doc
iii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police
Station concerned once in a month between 11:00
a.m. to 02:00 p.m., till the charges are framed;
iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his
passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same
with the Police Station concerned;
v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without
the permission of the Trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or
any person concerned with the case;
vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of
residence and contact number immediately after
being released and / or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court
seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the Police Station concerned;
Page 6 of 7
th
17 January 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 5_BA_21_2026.doc
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
10. Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
11. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
Page 7 of 7
th
17 January 2026
Checking your session…