The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected a bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The court found prima facie evidence that the applicant impersonated another identity to execute forged sale deeds and received money, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Bail application rejected. Applicant is not entitled to release under Section 439 CrPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
11-BA-814-2023.doc
Saeed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.814 OF 2023
Suresh Keshavrao Kale… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent
Mr. Pratik Kalantri, for the Applicant.
Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent/State.
CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED:JULY 17, 2023
P.C.:
1.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to Crime No.I-184 of 2022
registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2.According to the prosecution, the accused persons in
connivance with each other forged documents, such as Aadhaar
card, Pan card and Identity card of the informant and
impersonating informant sold informant’s immovable property to
accused No.1 for consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-. Mutation entries
were recorded to that effect.
3. Role attributed to the applicant is that the applicant is that he impersonated as S.L. Choudhari and executed sale-deed in
1
11-BA-814-2023.doc
favour of accused No.1.
4.The applicant was arrested on 10th August, 2022. The
investigating agency, after completion of investigation, has filed
charge-sheet against the applicant and other accused.
5.The applicant applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is rejected by order dated 5th
January, 2023. The applicant, therefore, filed present bail
application.
6.According to the learned advocate for the applicant, accused
No.4 opened bank account in the name of applicant. Though the
applicant was present at the time of registration of forged
documents; however according to him, accused Nos.1 and 4
brought him in the office to sign as witness. He is 72 years old.
He has no criminal antecedents. Except Rs.1,40,000/- as against
consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-, he has not received any other
amount. Therefore, he is entitled to bail as he is arrested on 10th
August, 2022.
7.Learned APP invited my attention to the execution clause of
the sale-deed which shows signature of applicant as S.L.
Choudhari while name of applicant is Suresh Keshavrao Kale. The
material on record indicates receipt of Rs.1,40,000/- by the
applicant from accused No.1 who is ultimate beneficiary. Forged
Pan card and Aadhaar card are affixed to the documents, wherein
the applicant is shown as S.L. Choudhari instead of Suresh Kale,
therefore, the active role of the applicant is apparent.
2
11-BA-814-2023.doc
8.On perusal of the material on record including charge-sheet,
prima-facie it appears that the applicant has played active role by
signing himself as S.L. Choudhari despite his name being Suresh
Keshavrao Kale. Prima-facie the annexure to the registered
document indicate photograph of applicant as S.L. Choudhari
instead of Suresh K. Kale. Prima-facie amount of Rs.1,40,000/-
has been transferred in the account of applicant by accused No.1
who has received property. The material on record indicates
receipt of amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by the applicant from accused
No.1. Based on aforesaid material at this stage, prima-facie it is
clear that the applicant has impersonated as S.L. Choudhari. By
signing as S.L. Choudhari and by annexing forged Aadhaar card
and Pan card which are in the name of S.L. Choudhari, prima-facie
intention of applicant was to make believe that the sale-deed was
made and executed by S.L. Choudhari. Therefore, at this stage,
the applicant is not entitled to release under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9. The application, therefore, stands rejected. No costs.
10. The observations made in the present order are confined to
the adjudication of present bail application under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court shall not
influence by the same. The Trial Court shall decide the trial on its
own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the present
order.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC given his alleged active role in impersonating another person and executing forged sale documents.
Whether the prima facie evidence of forgery and receipt of money justifies the rejection of the bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Keshavrao Kale
The State of Maharashtra
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court