Allowed

Bharat Rajnikant Gandhi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Aug 2021ABA/1814/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court allowed the application. The applicant was the attesting witness to a forged Power of Attorney used for property transfer but was not involved in its fabrication. The court directed his release on bail and spared him from custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; release on bail of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties; no custodial interrogation.

Bharat Rajnikant Gandhi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

5-Aba-1814-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1814 OF 2019

¶4

Bharat Rajnikant Gandhi … Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. N. M. Nadar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1.This is an application for anticipatory bail. The
applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No. I-115 of 2019
registered with Dahanu Police Station, Dist. Palghar for offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code (for short “IPC”).

¶10

2.The grievance of the complainant is that, father of the
complainant has passed away. He owned certain property. The
accused were involved in preparing the fabricated Power of
Attorney which was utilized for transferring the property. The role
attributed to the applicant is that he was attesting witness to the
document.

¶11

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2021.08.07 17:39:07 +0530

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

SLJ

¶14

5-Aba-1814-2019.doc

¶15

3.Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is a broker/estate agent. The only role attributed to him
is that he has signed the document as attesting witness. He has not
the beneficiary of the said property. He is not involved in the
transaction with the co-accused, who were involved in preparing
false documents.

¶16

4.Learned APP submitted that the applicant has attested
the document. Two other cases were registered against him. His
custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶17

5.The applicant has relied upon the order dated 27th
February, 2019 passed by this Court granting him anticipatory bail
in C.R. No.233 of 2018 registered with Talasari Police Station.
Apparently, the applicant appears to be estate agent. The role
assigned to him that he has attested the document. There is
nothing on record to indicate that he is involved in fabrication of
the Power of Attorney. The applicant was granted interim
protection by this Court vide order dated 20th August, 2019. He was
directed to attend the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the
applicant has contended that the applicant has complied the
direction of reporting to the Investigating Officer. In the light of the
aforesaid factual aspects, the applicant need not be subjected to

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

SLJ

¶20

5-Aba-1814-2019.doc

¶21

custodial interrogation.

¶22

6. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1814 of 2019 is
allowed;

¶25

(ii) Interim order dated 20^th August, 2019 is confirmed.

¶26

(iii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection
with in C.R. No. I-115 of 2019 registered with Dahanu Police
Station, Dist. Palghar, the applicant be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount;

¶27

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the investigating
officer as and when called for till filing of charge-sheet.

¶28

(v)Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶29

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

SLJ

Bharat Rajnikant Gandhi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Rajnikant Gandhi 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

Vinod R Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samadhan Pralhad Tekale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nagesh Sadashiv Bhandari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajan Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lindwall Joseph Rodrigues Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Mohasim Abdul Shukur Ansari Vs Sr. Police Inspector and Anr.