Bombay High Court
ASAD SALIM SHAIKHversusCHANDRAMANI DEORAJ DUBEY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant as he was not an accused in the charge‑sheet and had fully cooperated with the investigation.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Chandramani Deoraj Dubey, a director of M/s. Pooja Land & Premises Pvt. Ltd., who feared arrest in a fraud case involving forged power of attorney documents. The FIR alleged that the company’s directors forged government stamps and signatures to generate fake revenue receipts, but the applicant contended he was not named in the FIR, was not a signatory to any forged documents, and had cooperated fully with the investigation, attending the police station on fifteen occasions. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences and the need to secure documents, yet did not dispute the applicant’s cooperation or that he was listed as a ‘non‑charge‑sheeted person’ in the charge‑sheet. The Court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary given the documentary nature of the evidence and the applicant’s lack of direct involvement. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and ordered the applicant to appear before the police as required.
Issues considered
- Whether a director who is not named in the FIR and is a non‑charge‑sheeted person can be granted anticipatory bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita warrants denial of bail.
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary when the investigation relies primarily on documentary evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 322, 335, 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 340(2), 341(1), 341(2), 341(3), 341(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- director liability
- non‑charge‑sheeted person
- forgery
- corporate fraud
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
907-aba871-26.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.871 OF 2026
Chandramani Deoraj Dubey ...Applicant
Digitally signed
by VASANT V/s.
ANANDRAO
IDHOL State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
Date:
2026.10.09
20:16:31 +0530 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1311 OF 2026
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.871 OF 2026
Asad Salim Shaikh ...Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF:
Chandramani Deoraj Dubey ...Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr.Darshan Patankar with Mr.M.P. Mishra, and Mr.R.C. Mishra for
the Applicant.
Mr.Karan Desai i/b Mr.Naman Rawal for the Intervenor.
Mr.Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr.Dada Gaikwad, PI, Property Cell, Crime Branch, Mumbai is
present in Court.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER , 2026.
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned
1/5
907-aba871-26.doc
APP for the respondent-State.
2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No.653 of
2025 registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 322, 335,
336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 340(2), 341(1), 341(2), 341(3) and 341(4)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
3. The allegations in FIR are that the accused persons named
therein, had cheated the complainant by forging an Irrevocable Power
of Attorney document (No. 4665/2010) using counterfeited
government stamps, emblems, and signatures to falsely simulate its
execution at the Borivali Joint Deputy Registrar’s office and generate
fake revenue receipts and thus even deceived the government
authorities
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that although
allegations have been made against the applicant, he has not been
named in the FIR and no role is attributed to him. It is submitted that
the applicant, despite being a Director of M/s. Pooja Land & Premises
Pvt. Ltd., had no role in the alleged transactions, which were executed
entirely by the other directors of the company. Furthermore, the
applicant is not a signatory to any of the documents mentioned in the
FIR. He further submits that five other co-accused have already been
2/5
907-aba871-26.doc
granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. Notably, the investigation
is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, wherein the applicant
has not been arraigned as an accused but has been placed under the
category of a ‘non-charge-sheeted person’. Additionally, in accordance
with the interim protection order dated 01.07.2026 passed by this
court, the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation, having
reported to the concerned police station on 15 separate dates as
required by the Investigating Agency.
5. Learned APP for the respondent –State and learned counsel
for the intervener submits that the offence is serious in nature and the
custody of the applicant is required for securing all the relevant
documents and thus oppose the application. However, the learned APP
does not dispute the factual position that the applicant has attended the
concerned police station on 15 separate dates and further that the charge-
sheet is filed
6. Perused the FIR and the documents placed on record. It is
applicant’s contention that all the alleged transactions were executed by the
other directors and it has to be noted that the applicant is not a signatory to
any of the documents mentioned in the FIR. Pertinently, the applicant is a
director of a company which had entered into certain transactions based on
the document of irrevocable power of attorney. The said transaction was
3/5
907-aba871-26.doc
made by other director. As such, only because this applicant happens to be
director, he cannot be presumed to have intentionally done any transaction.
Furthermore, since the charge-sheet has already been filed and the
applicant has not been arraigned as an accused and in fact, has been placed
under the category of a ‘non-charge-sheeted person’, his custodial
interrogation need not be insisted. Given the fact that he has fully
cooperated with the investigation by attending the police station on 15
separate dates and supplying all demanded documents, as the investigation
relies entirely on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not warranted. Hence, the interim protection granted on 1 st
July, 2026 by this Court needs to be confirmed.
7. Hence, I pass the following order:
: ORDER :
i] Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
ii] in the event of arrest of the applicant in
crime no.653 of 2025 registered with
kasturba marg police station for the offence
punishable under sections 3(5), 318(2),
318(4), 319(2), 322, 335, 336(2), 336(3),
337, 338, 340(2), 341(1), 341(2), 341(3)
4/5
907-aba871-26.doc
and 341(4) of bharatiya nyaya sanhita, 2023
(bns). He be released on bail on furnishing P.
R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount.
iii] the applicant is directed to attend the
police station as and when called by the
investigating agency and produce all the
relevant documents if demanded by the
investigating agency.
8. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed
of.
9. Interim Application no. 1311/2026, for intervention is also
disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
5/5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.