Bombay High Court
VISHAL ANANT MUNDKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, a practising advocate, was charged with conspiracy to reuse cancelled stamp papers, forge challans and obtain an heirship certificate, facing multiple IPC offences. The prosecution alleged that he accepted court‑fee payments and was involved in the scheme, but the FIR and recorded statements did not clearly establish his precise role, especially as the alleged back‑office work was carried out by his brother‑in‑law. The applicant, incarcerated for more than 18 months, sought bail under Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court examined whether a prima facie case existed against him and held that the prosecution had not sufficiently linked him to the conspiracy. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to strict conditions, with the order limited to bail and without any finding on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case establishing the applicant's participation in the alleged conspiracy.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 493 CrPC/Section 483 B.N.S. given the nature and gravity of the offences.
- Whether the conditions imposed are appropriate to ensure the applicant's attendance and prevent tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 493
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 178, 179, 182, 183, 303(2), 305(e), 306, 318(4), 336, 337, 338, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 493 CrPC
- Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- conspiracy
- stamp paper fraud
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- conditions of bail
- advocate
Judgment
20.BA.4776.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4776 OF 2025
Vishal Anant Mundkar .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Saurabh Butala,
Mr. Harshad Sathe, Ms. Harshada Shrikhande and Mr. Sahil Mhatre
for Applicant.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent.
API – Sunil Wagh, Panvel City Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant
and Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent.
2. This is an Application under Section 493 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.73 of 2025
registered with Panvel City Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 318 (4), 336, 337, 338, 178, 179, 182, 183, 305(e),
306, 303(2) read with Section 3(5).
3. This Application seeks enlargemnet on bail of the Applicant.
4. Briefly stated and as argued by Ms. Newton, it is the case of
prosecution that Applicant alongwith other co-accused persons has
1 of 4
20.BA.4776.2025.doc
conspired and reused stamp papers rather cancelled stamp papers of
the Court and forged challan to obtain heirship certificate which is
issued by the civil Court pursuant to its order. Reading of the First
Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) appended at page No.150
alongwith report submitted by learned APP prima facie shows the role
of the Applicant in having the accepted the fees for payment of Court
fees stamp, 7 out of 9 witnesses whose statements have been recorded.
Two witnesses have not recorded their statement.
5. It is prima facie seen that Applicant before me is an Advocate
practising in the Panvel Court in such matters. The reading of the FIR
prima facie suggests the role of co-accused person who is an Advocate
called Sanket Patil and as apprised by the prosecution is the brother-in-
law of Applicant who was looking after the office work as a Clerk in
the Applicant’s office. It is not specifically so apprised and stated by
prosecution as to what is the precise role of the Applicant after he
having accepted the Court fees amount from two of out of seven
witnesses whose statements have been recorded for payment of Court
fees stamp prima facie did not show the involvement in conspiracy
unless the prosecution makes out a prima facie case against Applicant.
The allegation with regard to preparing false challan and destroying
data in his computer in office once again cannot be directly applicable
to the Applicant before me in view of indictment of brother-in-law who
was specifically working with regard to managing his office and in doing all
2 of 4
20.BA.4776.2025.doc
back office work. Applicant is already in incarceration for more than
18 months. The extent of conspiracy not having clearly been made
out, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicant.
6. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant has made out case for
grant of bail subject to following conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 73 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
Monday 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;
3 of 4
20.BA.4776.2025.doc
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with 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.
7. 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 its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.27
15:12:04 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…