Harun Gaffar Rajput vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Harun Gaffar Rajput vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail: in the event of the arrest of the Applicant Harun Gaffar Rajput in connection with C.R.No.I-798/2022 (Nayanagar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate), release on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: (b) attendance before the Investigating Officer as and when called; (c) regular attendance before the trial Court and cooperation with hearing/disposal; (d) no contacting or influencing prosecution witnesses and no tampering with prosecution evidence; (e) no commission of any offence; (f) furnishing of address and contact details to the Police Station and trial Court, with changes intimated. Interim Application No.4171 of 2024 (filed by the Complainant/intervenor) disposed of as it does not survive the disposal of the main application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, named in C.R.No.I-798/2022 (Nayanagar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander) for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 IPC, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, 1999, is entitled to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail despite the State's contention that the offence is serious and custodial interrogation is necessary. +1 more

Court's answer

The Applicant is not likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence; the trial will take its own time; therefore rejecting anticipatory bail and remanding the Applicant to judicial custody for the sake of trial would serve no purpose. The Applicant has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail, and in the event of arrest in connection with C.R.No.I-798/2022 he is to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to the conditions imposed in the operative order (attendance before the Investigating Officer and the trial Court, no contacting/influencing prosecution witnesses, no tampering with evidence, no commission of offences, furnishing of address and contact details).

Ratio / Principle

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against all accused persons including the Applicant without his arrest, following interim relief and cooperation with the investigation; the Investigating Officer stated that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary.

Key takeaways

The Court accepted, on instructions, the Applicant's undertaking to return the amount of the remaining (disputed) investors if proof is shown that they had invested their money with the accused persons; in view of that statement, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 had no objection to grant of bail.ratio¶29
Anticipatory Bail Application No.2515 of 2024 is disposed of.ratio¶43
In view of the disposal of Anticipatory Bail Application No.2515 of 2024, Interim Application No.4171 of 2024 filed by the Complainant does not survive and is disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted. Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Shyam C. Chandak, J.), Anticipatory Bail Application No.2515 of 2024, disposed on 9 April 2026. Applicant Harun Gaffar Rajput sought pre-arrest bail in C.R.No.I-798/2022 (Nayanagar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate) for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. Per the FIR, the Applicant and co-accused allegedly cheated the informant Munavar A. Khan and other investors by falsely promising cheaper tenements in an MHADA building scheme, inducing payment of a total of Rs.30,94,000/-, and forged the investors' KYC documents; the crime was registered on the complaint dated 08/11/2022. An earlier anticipatory bail application (Criminal Bail Application No.4233 of 2022) had been rejected by the Sessions Court, Thane on 22/12/2022. Before this Court: charge-sheet stood filed against all accused, including the Applicant, without arrest; the Investigating Officer stated custodial interrogation was not necessary; the parties had settled and Rs.1,01,55,000/- of the Rs.1,09,42,000/- recorded as accepted from 27 witnesses had been returned to 17 investors; the Applicant undertook, on instructions, to refund the remaining disputed amounts on proof of investment, whereupon counsel for Respondent No.3 raised no objection to bail. Held: the Applicant was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence, and rejecting anticipatory bail merely to keep him in judicial custody pending trial would serve no purpose; he had made out a case for pre-arrest bail. Operative order: in the event of arrest in C.R.No.I-798/2022, release on a P.R. bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions (attendance before the Investigating Officer and the trial Court, no contacting/influencing prosecution witnesses, no tampering with evidence, no fresh offences, furnishing of address/contact details). Interim Application No.4171 of 2024 filed by the Complainant-intervenor (Munavar Abid Khan) was disposed of as it did not survive.

WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN

Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.04.10 20:14:06 +0530

Manoj 22-ABA-2515-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2515 OF 2024

Harun Gaffar Rajput ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4171 OF 2024 IN

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2515 OF 2024

Munavar Abid Khan …. Intervenor In the matter between :- Harun Gaffar Rajput ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

Mr. Priyal Sarda a/w. Adv. J.V. Tare-Patil and T. Vinod Raman for the Applicant in ABA/2515/2024.

Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent – State.

Adv. Shadab Khopekar (through VC) for Respondent No.3 and for the Applicant in IA/4171/2024.

Mr. M. M. Khan, PSI, Nayanagar Police Station, present.

CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 9^th APRIL, 2026

P.C. :-

. The Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Cr.No.I-798/2022 registered with Nayanagar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned APP for the Respondent-State and learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3. Perused the record.

1/4

Manoj 22-ABA-2515-2024.doc

As per the text of the FIR, the Applicant and the co-accused persons have cheated the informant Munavar A. Khan and others investors by falsely promising them that the accused would get them cheaper tenements in MHADA building scheme and induced them to deliver the accused total Rs.30,94,000/-. Additionally, the accused persons forged the KYC document/s of the investors for the purpose of the cheating. Therefore, on the complaint dated 08/11/2022 filed by the informant Munavar A. Khan, the aforesaid crime came to be registered.

Applicant’s Criminal Bail Application No.4233 of 2022 seeking Anticipatory Bail came to be rejected by the Sessions Court at Thane vide Order dated 22/12/2022.

Mr. Sarda, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that during pendency of this Application, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. Pursuant to said settlement, the investors’ money has been returned and now, they have no grievance against the Applicant and his coaccused. An Affidavit is filed by the informant to that effect. This fact is recorded in the bail Order of the co-accused Ahsan Rajput, who is brother of the Applicant vide Order dated 13/06/2025 below Exhibit-8 in Special Case (MPID) No.433/2023.

5.1) Mr. Sarda submitted that, the Applicant is ready to attend before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation. The Applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, bail may be granted.

Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP opposed the Application and submitted that the Applicant and his co-accused have cheated many investors and for that purpose, they have forged the documents of their identity. Custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary to recover

2/4

Manoj 22-ABA-2515-2024.doc

the incriminating material. The offence is serious. Therefore, the Applicant is not entitled for bail.

It is a matter of fact that, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed against all the accused persons including the Applicant. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that after grant of interim relief, the Applicant has co-operated with the investigation. The Investigating Officer has stated that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. This is fortified by the fact of filing of the charge-sheet without arrest of the Applicant. The bail order of the coaccused Ahsan Rajput recorded that, the accused persons had accepted Rs.1,09,42,000/- from 27 witnesses. Out of it, total amount of Rs.1,01,55,000/- has been returned to 17 investors. The remaining amount is disputed. However, Mr. Sarda, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, stated that the Applicant undertakes to return the amount of the remaining investors, if proof is shown that they had invested their money with the accused persons. The said statement is accepted.

7.1) In view of the said statement, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has no objection for grant of bail.

The Applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence. The trial will take its own time. Therefore, rejecting the Anticipatory Bail and remanding the Applicant to judicial custody for the sake of trial, will not serve any purpose.

8.1) In view thereof, the Applicant has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the following Order :-

:: ORDER ::

(a) In the event of the arrest of the Applicant – Harun Gaffar Rajput in connection with C.R.No.I-798/2022 registered with

3/4

Manoj 22-ABA-2515-2024.doc

Nayanagar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(b) The Applicant shall attend before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

(c) The Applicant shall regularly attend before the trial Court and co-operate for hearing and disposal of the said cases as will be required by the trial Court.

(d) The Applicant shall not contact and influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(e) The Applicant shall not commit any offence.

(f) The Applicant shall furnish his address and contact details to the Police Station and the trial Court and a change therein, if any.

1. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of.

In view of the disposal of Anticipatory Bail Application No.2515 of 2024, the Interim Application No.4171 of 2024 filed by the Complainant does not survive and the same is disposed of.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

4/4