Disposed

Raj Kanaksen Bhansali and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Aug 2011ABA/592/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In four consolidated criminal anticipatory applications regarding alleged forgery in land disputes, the single-judge court concluded that custodial investigation was not necessary and disposed of the matters by granting interim relief conditions.

What did the court decide?

All applications disposed; orders for future appearance, jurisdictional restrictions, and prospective bail terms issued for each applicant.

Raj Kanaksen Bhansali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

mnm

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION NO. 592 OF 2011

¶5

Raj Kanaksen Bhansali & Anr. Vs.	...Applicants
The State of Maharashtra	...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Tejas Dande, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. A.A. Kocharekar, Advocate for Intervener/Orig. Complainant

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION NO. 593 OF 2011

¶9

Raj Kanaksen Bhansali & Anr. Vs.	...Applicants
The State of Maharashtra And	...Respondent
Prakash Gajanan Rane	...Intervener/Orig.Complt.

¶10

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Tejas Dande, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. Jayant Baradeskar, Advocate for Intervener/Orig. Complainant

¶11

WITH

¶12

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION NO. 594 OF 2011

¶13

Ravi Chaitanya Varma & Anr. Vs.	...Applicants
The State of Maharashtra And	...Respondent
Prakash Gajanan Rane	...Intervener/Orig.Complt.

¶14

Mr. Inderpal Singh Nirmale, Advocate i/b. ALMT Legal for

¶15

¶16

the Applicants

¶17

Mr. Abhishek Yende, Advocate for Intervener./Orig. Complainant

¶18

WITH

¶19

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2011

¶20

Ravi Chaitanya Varma & Anr. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶21

Mr. Inderpal Singh Nirmale, Advocate i/b. ALMT Legal for the Applicants Mr. A. A. Kocharekar, Advocate for Intervener./Orig. Complainant

¶22

WITH

¶23

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2011

¶24

Somnath Bhagwanrao Bhorade & Anr.	...Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra	...Respondent

¶25

Mr. Nitin Pradhan, Sr. Counsel i/b. Ms.S.D. Khot with Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for the Applicants

¶26

Mr. H. Mundargi, Advocate for Intervener./Orig. Complainant

¶27

WITH

¶28

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION NO. 580 OF 2011

¶29

Somnath Bhagwanrao Bhorade & Anr. Vs.	...Applicants
The State of Maharashtra And	...Respondent
Prakash Gajanan Rane	...Intervener/Orig.Complt.

¶30

Mr. Nitin Pradhan, Sr. Counsel i/b. Ms. S.D. Khot with Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for the Applicants

¶31

¶32

Mr. A.A. Kocharekar, Advocate for Intervener./Orig. Complainant

¶33

CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 16^TH AUGUST, 2011

¶34

P.C. :

¶35

These Applicants have been pending since last several months. The criminal complaints have been filed essentially upon the case of forgery of certain power of attorney got executed allegedly from the owners of the land. The land is being developed. The developers as also certain Government authorities who are the Talathi and Circle Officer as well as the Notary are charged with the offence of forgery and fabrication of documents. The original documents have been seen during investigation. Certain confirmation deeds of several of the owners who claim their signatures were forged have also been executed. Essentially the dispute is civil in nature.

¶36

The forgery, if any, can be seen by circumstantial evidence in the civil suit filed on title. It is an abuse and it would be improper to continuously grant interim reliefs and keep the application for anticipatory bail pending. It has to be seen and decided whether custodial investigation is at present required.

¶37

The documentary evidence speaks for itself. The copies of the documents have been produced before the Court. These documents are filed with the complaints themselves. The complainants have themselves got signatures compared, enlarged and obtained certain Handwriting Expert’s opinion directly.

¶38

¶39

Further custodial investigation would not be required at present. All the accused/applicants in these applications shall attend before the relevant police officer as and when called upon.

¶40

They shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the permission of the Investigating Officer. The Applicants shall not leave the Country also without the permission of the Court and the Investigating Officer.

¶41

In case the Applicants are arrested, they shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each for the builders/developers and Rs.50,000/each for the Government servants with one or two sureties in like amount.

¶42

All the Applications are disposed off accordingly.

¶43

(SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Raj Kanaksen Bhansali and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kanaksen Bhansali and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharif Hasan Abdul Rauf Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mohmed Alim Mohmed Shafi . Vs Mahmood Alli Borkar

Manish Chhotelal Sharma Vs Payal Manish Sharma

Mr. Manoj Lakulal Chaurasia Vs Mr. Ramesh Lakulal Chaurasia

Ranibai Yashwant Bhadake and Ors. Vs Sudam Yashwant Bhadake and Ors.

Mr. Mevalal Amarnath Yadav and Ors. Vs Smt. Sonali Mule and Ors.