Bombay High Court
KIRAN BALIRAM BHOIRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the prosecution had not established a prima facie case of the applicant's participation in the alleged conspiracy.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Kiran Baliram Bhoir, a xerox machine operator charged as accused No.7 in FIR No. 186 of 2026 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including forgery and impersonation. The prosecution alleged that Bhoir participated in a conspiracy by using a Special Executive Officer's stamp to certify a false copy of a 1980 sale deed, which was then used by the principal accused to manipulate property records. The court observed that, on a prima facie basis, there was no incriminating material linking Bhoir to the alleged conspiracy and that any complicity could be examined at trial. Consequently, the court granted regular bail with a personal bond of Rs.15,000 and several conditions, including monthly reporting to the investigating officer and non‑interference with witnesses. The bail order was made without prejudice to the ongoing trial, and the interim application was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the prima facie evidence against the applicant under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, justifies denial of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- conspiracy
- forgery
- impersonation
- stamp misuse
- sale deed
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
86. BA-3294-26 & IA-2892-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3294 OF 2026
Kiran Baliram Bhoir .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2892 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3294 OF 2026
Kirti Ratilal Shukla Intervenor / First
.. Informant
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kiran Baliram Bhoir .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade a/w Mr. Harshad Sathe, Mr. Dilip Satale &
Ms. Swati Panjwani i/by SHB Legal, Advocates for Applicant
Mr. Amit K. Munde, APP for State
Mr. Vikram R. Sutariya a/w Mr. Rishabh D. Dingh, Mr. Tapan
Radkar & Ms. Leepika B. Rasiwasia i/by DSK Legal, Advocates for
Intervenor
Mr. Pankaj Ghatkar, PI, EOW, Raigad
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bhadbhade, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.
Munde, learned APP for State and Mr. Sutaria, learned Advocate for
Intervenor.
1 of 5
86. BA-3294-26 & IA-2892-26.odt
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular Bail in connection with FIR
No. 186 of 2026 registered with Karjat Police Station, Raigad for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS").
3. Applicant is indicted in the present crime and arraigned as
accused No. 7. The principal accused in the present crime which
relates to cheating, forgery and impersonation of substantive
documentary material is accused No. 1. Insofar as the present
Applicant is concerned, he is a xerox machine operator for many years.
He has no criminal antecedents. Charge of the prosecution against him
is that he had used a stamp of a Special Executive Officer for certifying
the copy of a registered sale deed of 1980 as a true copy.
Admittedly, the stamp is that of the S.E.O. whose statement is recorded
where he himself stated that between 1999 and 2004, he had kept and
given his said stamp to the Applicant. The prosecution has recovered
the said stamp and all other things associated therewith from the
Applicant. No further recovery is required to be made from the
Applicant.
4. The thrust of the prosecution argument and the argument of
learned Advocate for Intervenor is that role of the Applicant is that of
he being involved in a deep-rooted conspiracy with regard to the
2 of 5
86. BA-3294-26 & IA-2892-26.odt
registered sale deed of 1980 which on the basis of the stamp of it
being a true copy was used by the accused No. 1 for furthering his
interest in the property by approaching the Revenue Authorities for
reconstruction of the said registered document. Whatever are the
substantive rights of the parties will undoubtedly be governed by the
proceedings before the Revenue Authority and the Civil Court in
accordance with law.
5. Today, the Bail Application of the Applicant who is arraigned as
accused No. 7 is before me. Though it is argued vehemently that
Applicant was part of the conspiracy and was having absolute
knowledge about the furtherance and use of the alleged true copy of
the sale deed for extraneous purposes by the other accused person,
prima facie, there is no incriminating material whatsoever which
impels me to accept the said contention.
6. Complicity of the Applicant can be proved by the prosecution
otherwise at trial where all questions are kept open. Applicant for his
role and indictment has made out a case for grant of bail. Hence, the
Applicant is released on bail on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released on bail
from prison in connection with FIR No. 186 of 2026;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
3 of 5
86. BA-3294-26 & IA-2892-26.odt
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday of the 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; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
4 of 5
86. BA-3294-26 & IA-2892-26.odt
7. 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 made and the material placed before this Court.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Interim Application is also disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.10.09
20:52:27 +0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.