Surjit Singh S/O Amrik Singh Sani vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

9-ABA-1343-2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed GAYATRIRAJENDRA by GAYATRIRAJENDRASHIMPI SHIMPI Date: 2026.05.05 15:55:11 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1343 OF 2025

¶5

Gurdip Singh Amrik Singh & Anr. … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2275 OF 2025 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1343 OF 2025 Mahaveer Kumar Pukhraj Jain … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1351 OF 2025 Surjit Singh S/O Amrik Singh Sani … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2273 OF 2025

1

Gayatri shimpi

9-ABA-1343-2025.doc

IN

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1351 OF 2025

¶17

Mahaveer Kumar Pukhraj Jain … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶18

Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Dilip Shukla, Advocates for Applicants in both this ABA.

¶19

Mr. Anshuman Asare, Advocate for Intervener for Respondent No. 2.

¶20

Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.

¶21

Mr. Yogesh G. - API, Shantinagar Police Station, Bhiwandi, Thane.

¶22

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

¶23

DATE : 4^th MAY, 2026

¶24

P.C. :

¶25

On 24^th June, 2025, the following order was passed:-

¶26

“. Heard.

¶27

Leave to implead the first informant as a party respondent to these applications.

¶28

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicants have already furnished the original sale deed to the investigating agency. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there is nothing further to be recovered or discovered from the applicants. He further submits that the dispute in question pertains entirely to civil rights and obligations and does not attract any liability.

¶29

In response, the learned APP confirms that the original sale deed has indeed been received by the

2

Gayatri shimpi

9-ABA-1343-2025.doc

investigating officer. The learned APP further assures this Court that, in view of the current stage of the investigation, the applicants shall not be subjected to arrest in the present crime until the next date.

¶34

By consent, stand over to 29 July 2025. To be listed along with Interim Application (St) No. 12717 of 2025 and Interim Application (St) No. 12722 of 2025.

¶35

Dr. Uday Warunjikar learned Advocate for the

¶36

Applicants, submits that leave was granted to the Applicants to join the first Informant as a party Respondent to these Applications. He submits that instead of joining the Informant/Complainant as Respondent No. 2, the Applicants joined Mahaveer Kumar Pukhraj Jain (Accused No. 2) as Respondent No. 2. He therefore seeks leave to delete Mahaveer Kumar Pukhraj Jain as Respondent No. 2 and to add the Informant (Ms. Asha Bholaji Patil) as Respondent No. 2 in these Applications. This request made by Dr. Uday Warunjikar is not opposed by Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.

¶37

In view of the no objection by Ms. Shilpa Talhar learned APP, request made by Dr. Uday Warunjikar learned Advocate for the Applicant, is granted. Permission granted to delete Mahaveer Kumar Pukhraj Jain and to substitute him with

3

Gayatri shimpi

9-ABA-1343-2025.doc

the Informant (Asha Bholaji Patil) as Respondent No. 2. Dr. Uday Warunjikar states that the amendment would be carried out forthwith. Permission granted.

¶42

Mr. Narayan Rokade and Mr. Anshuman Asare appear

¶43

and state that they have instructions to appear for the newly added Respondent No. 2 in these Applications.

¶44

Dr. Uday Warunjikar learned Advocate for the Applicants, Mr. Anshuman Asare and Mr. Narayan Rokade learned Advocates for Respondent No. 2 in these Applications and Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for the State in these Applications, jointly submit that these Applications can be taken up together as they pertain to the same Crime No. 1383 of 2024, registered with Shantinagar Police Station, Bhiwandi District Thane for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC read with Section 34. At their request, both Applications are taken up together.

¶45

Dr Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the

4

Gayatri shimpi

9-ABA-1343-2025.doc

Applicants, submits that the Applicants are bona fide purchasers who have purchased the property for consideration. He submits that the sale deed, which is the subject matter of controversy, is a registered Sale deed. He submits that the Applicants are cooperating with the Investigation Officer. He submits that the Applicants do not have any criminal antecedents.

¶50

Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for the State, submits that the Applicants have been cooperating with the investigation in Crime No. 1383 of 2024. She, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, states that as the Applicants are cooperating with the investigation, their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶51

Mr. Anshuman Asare, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 submits that the main allegations in the Crime No. 1383 of 2024 are against essentially against the co-accused (Mahaveer Kumar Pukhraj Jain).

¶52

In view of the above and more particularly the statement made by Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for the State, these Applications are allowed on the following terms :-

5

Gayatri shimpi

9-ABA-1343-2025.doc

(a) Each of the Applicants is directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 1383 of 2026 registered with Shantinagar Police Station, Bhiwandi, Thane, on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with one or two local sureties in the like amount.

¶57

(b) Applicant/s shall report to the Investigating Officer, Shantinagar Police Station, Bhiwandi, on 2^nd Saturday of each month between 12.00 pm to 1.00 pm. In the event the Applicant/s is required on any other day by the Investigating Officer, the Applicant/s shall ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer.

¶58

(c) Applicant/s shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/s acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade such person/s from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer.

6

Gayatri shimpi

9-ABA-1343-2025.doc

(d) Applicant/s shall not tamper with evidence in any manner.

¶63

(e) Each Applicant shall provide the Investigating Officer with his residential address along with proof, his contact number, email and must inform the Investigating Officer of any changes to this information from time to time.

¶64

(f) Applicant/s shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the process of investigation of the present Crime.

¶65

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1343 of 2025 and Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1351 of 2025 are disposed of. Pending Interim Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶66

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶67

7

¶68

Gayatri shimpi

Surjit Singh S/O Amrik Singh Sani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

Surjit Singh S/O Amrik Singh Sani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamala Landmare Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hussain Akbarali Virji and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hussain Akbarali Virji and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mithlesh D Rajput and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Santosh Bandu Raut vs the Sttae of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani vs State of Maharashtra