Bombay High Court
SHAMBHURAJE BABANRAO WABLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court held that there are no specific allegations of map tampering against the applicant, and therefore bail was warranted.
Summary
The applicant, a City Survey Officer, was charged under several IPC sections for alleged tampering of city survey maps, though he claims to be a whistle‑blower who reported the irregularities. A departmental enquiry exonerated him, and the prosecution’s case only alleged that he failed to verify certified copies against originals, with no specific allegation of actual tampering. The prosecution argued that he was the main culprit and could threaten witnesses, while the defence highlighted his clean record and the lack of concrete accusations. The Court examined the chargesheet, noted that the primary allegations of map tampering were against a co‑accused who had already been bailed, and found no substantive charge against the applicant. Consequently, the Court granted regular bail on cash and surety conditions, subject to standard compliance requirements, and clarified that the order is limited to bail and does not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, despite being named in the chargesheet, warrants denial of bail on the ground of alleged involvement in map tampering.
- Whether the departmental exoneration impacts the bail consideration under the IPC offences listed.
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant absconding or influencing witnesses that justifies bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 209, 34, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- map tampering
- whistleblower
- departmental enquiry
- Indian Penal Code
- government servant
- surety
Judgment
55-BA-3520-25.doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3520 OF 2025
Shambhuraje Babanrao Wable .....Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ujjalkumar Chavhan, Mr.
Bhushan Yadav, Mr. Aditya Hire and Mr. Chinmay Godse, Advocates for
the Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in
C.R.No. 82 of 2020 registered with Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai for
the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 409, 420,
120(B), 209, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. It is prosecution’s case that the applicant, City Survey Officer
and co-accused tampered with City Survey Maps of Goregaon area which
were in their custody and showed certain structures constructed on the
said property. In fact, there were no structures on the said property, the
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI SATISH said tampering was done to reap benefits of illegal constructions.
SATISH KILAJE
KILAJE Date:
2026.02.05
15:08:06 3. It is contention of learned Senior counsel for the applicant that
+0700
Page 1 of 4
55-BA-3520-25.doc
S.S.Kilaje
the applicant is the whistle blower. He had filed complaint when he
noticed the tampering in records. After verifying the complaint, enquiry
began. The police filed two chargesheets against the co-accused. In third
chargesheet, name of the applicant is mentioned. No specific allegations
are made against the applicant except that he has not verified the maps
while issuing the certified copies. The departmental enquiry is conducted.
The applicant has been exonerated from the charges leveled against him in
the said departmental enquiry. The applicant is a Government Officer. He
has no antecedents. He is behind bars for around ten months. It may take
time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant is the main
culprit. He was incharge of the office where tampering of the map
occurred. He has issued the maps without verifying the original map. By
fiddling with the said maps, the structures were shown as erected on the
plot of land whereas there were no structures. There is involvement of the
applicant and co-accused who are government servants. They have
cheated the Government. Though the applicant is exonerated in
departmental enquiry, there is sufficient material against him in the
chargesheet. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or
threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet
Page 2 of 4
55-BA-3520-25.doc
S.S.Kilaje
and documents produced on record. The main allegations of tampering in
the maps are against the co-accused Soma Marade. He has been released
on bail. The main allegations against the applicant are that he had not
verified the certified copies of map with original maps. The departmental
enquiry is conducted. In the said enquiry, the applicant has been
exonerated from the charges leveled against him. When this Court asked
the learned APP about the specific role of the applicant, learned APP
submitted that it was duty of the applicant to verify the original map with
the certified copy but it was not done. In my view, there are no allegations
against the applicant of tampering with the maps. The applicant is a
Government servant. Investigation is completed. Chargesheet has been
filed. The applicant is behind bars for around ten months. Considering
these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
i. The applicant be released on cash bail of Rs.50,000/-
in C.R.No. 82 of 2020 registered with Goregaon Police
Station, Mumbai, on furnishing P.R. Bond of same
amount.
ii. The applicant shall furnish one or two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- within one month of release from jail.
Page 3 of 4
55-BA-3520-25.doc
S.S.Kilaje
iii. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or
attempt to influence or contact the complainant,
witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
6. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of.
7. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…