Shakila Ansari vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Shakila Ansari vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 947 of 2025 (Sakinaka Police Station), release on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Sakinaka Police Station till conclusion of the trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 947 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(1), 333, 336(2), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is entitled to anticipatory bail. +1 more

Court's answer

In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 947 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station (offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(1), 333, 336(2), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), she shall be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Ratio / Principle

As a condition of the anticipatory bail, the applicant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Sakinaka Police Station till conclusion of the trial.

Key takeaways

The ground for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail (with conditions) is that the main allegations in the present FIR are against the co-accused Shalini Appukuntar.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.R. Borkar, J.) allowed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3148 of 2025 filed by Shakila Ansari, who apprehended arrest in Crime No. 947 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(1), 333, 336(2), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations were that the applicant and other co-accused forcibly evicted the tenant of the complainant from premises owned by the complainant, prepared forged documents with respect to the premises and transferred them in favour of co-accused Wajit Ali Jafar Ali Sayyad; the prosecution also pointed to a further complaint of dispossession by another person. Observing that in the present FIR the main allegations were against co-accused Shalini Appukuntar, the Court held that in the event of arrest the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to the condition that she shall not enter the jurisdiction of Sakinaka Police Station till conclusion of the trial.

917-aba3148-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3148 OF 2025

Shakila Ansari …Applicant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Ms. Anjali Awasti, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. B. V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 04.12.2025.

P.C. :

This is an application for Anticipatory Bail.

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No. 947 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(1), 333, 336(2), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2), & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The allegations against the present applicant and other co-accused are that they forcibly evicted the tenant of the complainant from the premises owned by the complainant. It is further alleged that the applicant and the other co-accused got

Pramod S.Lakare

1/3

917-aba3148-2025.doc

prepared forged documents with respect to the said premises and transferred the same in favour of co-accused Wajit Ali Jafar Ali Sayyad.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that with some ulterior motive false allegations are made against the applicant.

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState submits that the applicant is involved in one more crime. It is submitted that one more person has made the similar complaint of dispossession against the applicant.

In the present FIR, the main allegations are against the co-accused Shalini Appukuntar. Considering the said fact, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail on certain conditions. In the result, the following order is passed :

Pramod S.Lakare

2/3

917-aba3148-2025.doc

O R D E R

a) The Application is allowed.

b) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 947 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(1), 333, 336(2), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2), & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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.

c) The applicant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Sakinaka Police Station till conclusion of the trial.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Pramod S.Lakare

3/3