Dismissed¶7

Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026ABA/3356/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Bombay High Court; ABA 3356/2025; N.R. Borkar, J.; Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State of Maharashtra; Crime No.133 of 2025; Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Ss.316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 342(2) r/w 3(5); railway job fraud; Rs.14,00,000/-; forged government appointment letter; specific allegations in FIR; involved in two more similar crimes; false implication plea rejected; decision dated 01ST APRIL 2026.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the FIR, the Court found that there are specific allegations against the present Applicant. ¶7

Santosh Chandrakant Katare vs State of Maharashtra and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 929-ABA 3356-25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3356 OF 2025

¶3

Santosh Chandrakant Katare … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶4

Mr. Sanjay Sawant a/w Mr. B. K. Barve a/w Sandeep Barve a/w Simmy Sebastian a/w Santosh Wagh i/by B. K. Barve & Company for the Applicant.

¶5

Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

Mr. V. J. Bagul, ASI, Devlali Camp Police Station, Nashik City is present.

¶7

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 01ST APRIL 2026

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is an Application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.133 of 2025 registered with Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 342(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶11

It is the case of the prosecution that the present Applicant and other co-accused defrauded the first informant and his brother to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- on the pretext of securing them job in the Railways. It is alleged that forged appointment letter bearing government stamp and other government documents were handed over to the first informant and his brother.

¶12

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

Mugdha

¶15

2 929-ABA 3356-25.doc

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation as nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the present Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn my attention to certain documents placed on record to show that the coaccused in the present crime was abducted by the first informant and others. It is submitted that as the present Applicant tried to mediate in the said matter, false FIR is lodged against the present Applicant. It is submitted that the allegations of forgery are against the co-accused Santosh Gaikwad and he has already been released on bail.

¶17

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the Applicant is the main accused. It is submitted that the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

I have perused the FIR. There are specific allegations against the present Applicant. The Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature and therefore at this stage I am not inclined to accept the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant in respect of false implication. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶19

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶20

2 of 2

¶21

Mugdha

Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Jitendra Maganlal Yadav and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Pravin Ranka vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak R Kushwaha and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Khalil Ashraf Surve vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Chandrakant Katare vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aditya Sudhir Rangnekar vs Shweta Aditya Rangnekar