Dismissed¶32

Vijay Chhaganrao Kumawat v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jan 2026ABA/1297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail application rejected; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 340(2); cheating; forgery of bank NOC; Union Bank of India; mortgaged property; Nilesh Saklecha; Manoj Kumar Jain; Rs. 51,00,000; cash/PhonePe/Paytm payments dated 01.07.2024; custodial interrogation necessary; interim protection dated 13.10.2025 not confirmed; FIR No. 641 of 2025, Shirdi Police Station, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Mehroz K. Pathan, J.; decided 15.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Upon enquiry it was revealed that the NOC purportedly issued by Union Bank of India for release of the property was a forged document, and the Investigating Officer received confirmation from the bank that no such NOC was issued. ¶31

Vijay Chhaganrao Kumawat vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 641 of 2025 (offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), is entitled to anticipatory bail / confirmation of the interim protection granted on 13.10.2025. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected by the prosecution, it prima facie appears that the applicant had dishonest intention from the inception to cheat the complainant.

¶31

Key takeaways

Considering that the investigation involves forgery of documents, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for proper investigation.ratio¶31
In view of the foregoing, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant; hence the Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected.ratio¶32
Consequently, the Criminal Application for assisting the prosecution also stands disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — rejection; cheating/forgery (BNS 2023). Applicant Vijay Chhaganrao Kumawat, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 641 of 2025 (Shirdi Police Station; Ss. 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) BNS 2023), sought confirmation of interim protection granted 13.10.2025. Perusal of investigation papers showed he induced complainant Manoj Kumar Jain and, similarly, Nilesh Saklecha over the same property already mortgaged with Union Bank of India, receiving Rs. 51,00,000/- in all (including Rs. 81,000/- cash, Rs. 95,000/- PhonePe and Rs. 75,000/- Paytm on 01.07.2024); a bank NOC shared on social media was found to be forged, the bank confirming no such NOC was issued. Prima facie dishonest intention from inception; since the investigation involves forgery of documents, custodial interrogation was held necessary. Held: not a fit case to exercise discretion; Anticipatory Bail Application rejected; connected Criminal Application No. 3318 of 2025 disposed of. (Mehroz K. Pathan, J.; 15.04.2026; 2026:BHC-AUG:16960)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:16960

¶2

70 ABA NO. 1297 OF 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1297 OF 2025

¶5

Vijay Chhaganrao Kumawat VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra

¶7

Mr. Chapalgaonkar Shailesh S., Advocate for Applicant

¶8

Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent - State

¶9

Mr. S. P. Sonwane, Advocate for Assist to P. P.

¶10

WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3318 OF 2025 IN ABA/1297/2025

¶12

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 15.04.2026

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP

¶15

for the respondent–State, as also the learned counsel assisting the prosecution.

¶16

The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 641 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025, registered with Shirdi Police Station, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶17

1/4

¶18

Jhs/

¶19

70 ABA NO. 1297 OF 2025

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court had protected the applicant vide order dated 13.10.2025. The applicant has attended the police station and has cooperated with the investigation. Hence, the interim relief may be confirmed and the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The dispute is essentially civil in nature and the FIR has been lodged with an intention to recover the amount paid by the complainant towards purchase of the property. It is submitted that the property was mortgaged with the bank and the civil dispute has been deliberately given a criminal colour. The applicant, therefore, seeks confirmation of the interim protection.

¶22

As against this, the learned APP as well as the learned counsel assisting the prosecution strongly oppose the application on the ground that the applicant had an intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception. It is submitted that the applicant suppressed the material fact that the property was already mortgaged with the bank and that unless the bank dues were cleared, the sale deed could not have been executed. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.

¶23

2/4

¶24

Jhs/

¶25

70 ABA NO. 1297 OF 2025

¶26

51,00,000/- under an agreement dated 01.07.2024, which was notarized. It is further submitted that prior to the said agreement, the applicant had already entered into an agreement for sale of the same property with one Nilesh Saklecha in the year 2019 and had received substantial amounts from him as well. The said fact was also suppressed from the present complainant. It is further contended that though the applicant attended the police station, he has not cooperated with the investigation. Hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for effective investigation and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶27

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the prosecution. The record indicates that the applicant has not only induced the present complainant, namely Manoj Kumar Jain, but has also similarly induced another person, namely Nilesh Saklecha, in respect of the same property, which was already mortgaged with Union Bank of India. It appears that the applicant has received various amounts from the complainant, including Rs. 81,000/- in cash, Rs. 95,000/- through PhonePe and Rs. 75,000/- through Paytm on 01.07.2024, and thereafter additional amounts from time to time, totaling to Rs. 51,00,000/-. On one occasion, the applicant assured the complainant that he had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the bank for release of the property, and the said NOC

¶28

3/4

¶29

Jhs/

¶30

70 ABA NO. 1297 OF 2025

¶31

was even shared on social media. However, upon enquiry, it was revealed that the said NOC purportedly issued by Union Bank of India was a forged document. The Investigating Officer has received confirmation from the bank that no such NOC was issued. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected by the prosecution, it prima facie appears that the applicant had dishonest intention from the inception to cheat the complainant. Considering that the investigation involves forgery of documents, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for proper investigation.

¶32

In view of the above, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected. Consequently, the Criminal Application for assisting the prosecution also stands disposed of.

¶33

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )

¶34

4/4

¶35

Jhs/

Vijay Chhaganrao Kumawat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Chhaganrao Kumawat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Girish Ashokrao Dixit vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pandit Ranjya Tadavi vs the State of Maharashtra

Sow. Alkabai Vishwambar Sawant and Anr. vs Vishwambar Jyotiram Sawant and Others

Pankaj Radheshyam Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Narayanrao Joshi Died through Legal Heirs Chababai Subhashrao Joshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Pasha Syed Mustafa Lrs Rabbani and Others vs Union of India and Othres