Bombay High Court
DIPAK MOHAN PHADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail was granted as the prosecution failed to demonstrate the applicant’s complicity in the alleged fraud.
Summary
Dipak Mohan Phad, a junior clerk in Panvel Court, was arrested for allegedly accepting a bogus court‑fee challan of Rs 18,750 to obtain an heirship certificate, leading to charges of cheating, forgery and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution contended that Phad conspired with his superior, Accused No. 4, Pravin Bandiwadekar, to perpetrate the fraud. The court noted that Accused No. 4 had already been released on bail and that the prosecution had not shown any concrete evidence of Phad’s participation in a conspiracy. Considering that Phad, as a junior clerk, could not be expected to detect the forged challan and had reported the matter to his superior, the court found no basis to deny bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, Phad was released on a personal bond of Rs 15,000 with one surety, and standard bail conditions were imposed. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not address the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant should be granted bail despite allegations of cheating, forgery and alleged conspiracy with a co‑accused
- Whether the prosecution has established sufficient evidence of the applicant’s participation in the fraudulent scheme to justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 178, 179, 183, 238, 316(5), 318(4), 329, 335, 336(1), 336(2), 337, 338, 339, 341, 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 3(f), 45(c), 49, 60
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- forgery
- conspiracy
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- court fee fraud
- junior clerk
- heirship certificate
Judgment
12 ba 3130 of 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3130 OF 2026
Dipak Mohan Phad .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State.
API Ajit P. Biradar, Panvel Town Police Station, present.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Sarda, learned Advocate for the Applicant and
Mr. Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent–State.
2. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking bail in connection
with CR No. 17 of 2025 registered with Panvel City Police Station, for
the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 335, 336(1),
336(2), 337, 338, 339, 341, 178, 179, 183, 45(c), 49, 60, 238,
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH 329,3(f), 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
AHER
Digitally signed by
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
AHER
Date: 2026.08.20
(BNS).
20:20:54 +0530
Rajeshri Aher
1 of 5
12 ba 3130 of 2026.odt
3. The Applicant before me is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the
present crime. He was working as the Junior Clerk in the Panvel
Court. He was arrested on 31st January, 2025, for cheating and forgery.
According to the prosecution, the Applicant accepted a challan, copy of
which is appended at Exhibit 251 of the Application, which was for
Rs. 18,750/-, towards court fee for the purpose of obtaining Heirship
Certificate in a Testamentary proceedings. According to the
prosecution, this challan was a bogus challan, which came to light
subsequently because the number of the said challan did not reflect
the amount on the GRAS Website of the Government. Since the
Applicant had accepted the challan and processed it further for the
purpose of issuance of Heirship Certificate to the concerned party, the
Applicant has been indicted. Though, the role of the Applicant is
otherwise serve as argued by the prosecution, the prosecution has
referred to and relied on rejection of the previous bail orders passed
this Court, appended at page no. 23 of the Application. On reading of
the said order, it is prima facie seen that it is the prosecution’s own
case that the Applicant had immediately informed the Accused No. 4,
namely, Pravin Bandiwadekar, who was then his immediate office
Superintendent and the superior under whom the Applicant was
working. Once that is the position, the cases of the prosecution that
Rajeshri Aher
2 of 5
12 ba 3130 of 2026.odt
the Applicant and Accused No.4 have conspired in the said fraud,
prima facie cannot be accepted, for the sole reason that the Accused
No.4 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
6th May, 2025. Reading paragraph no. 6 which is the case of the
prosecution reflected in the previous bail order itself, gives leeway to
the Applicant to be released on bail. The Applicant, who was otherwise
as a Junior Clerk, would not be expected to have a roving eye to
determine whether the challan given to him was a forged challan or
otherwise despite which he pointed it out to his superior. Unless the
prosecution is able to show complicity of the Applicant in the
conspiracy of fraud, the prosecution case cannot be countenanced at
this stage. That not having been shown, the Applicant has made out a
good case for grant of bail. Therefore the Application is allowed. The
Applicant is, therefore, released on bail.
4. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 17 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only), with one
surety of the like amount;
Rajeshri Aher
3 of 5
12 ba 3130 of 2026.odt
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Panvel City Police Station, Raigad, once every month on the first
Sunday 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; and
(viii) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
5. 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
Rajeshri Aher
4 of 5
12 ba 3130 of 2026.odt
its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie
observations made herein above in this order.
6. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Rajeshri Aher
5 of 5
Checking your session…