Abdul Ibrahim Khan and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Abdul Ibrahim Khan and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 224 of 2025 (Dahanu Police Station) for cheating and forgery offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 read with 34 IPC, should be released on anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

On the applicants' own showing the first informant was a friend of applicant No.1, so there appeared to be no reason for the informant to make false allegations against them.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the nature of the crime, the court was not inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail, and the application was rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused. Abdul Ibrahim Khan and another, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 224 of 2025 registered at Dahanu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 IPC, sought anticipatory bail. The prosecution alleged that the applicants had availed loans of Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- from Janta Co-operative Bank Limited after forging the first informant's signature as guarantor, while the informant was out of India during the relevant period, and that the informant discovered the alleged forgery on receiving a bank notice for non-payment of installments. Counsel for the applicants argued that applicant No.1 and the informant were friends, that the informant had himself stood as guarantor to a loan taken by applicant No.1, that the allegations were false and made with ulterior motive, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court held that, by the applicants' own admission, the first informant was a friend of applicant No.1 and therefore had no apparent reason to make false allegations; considering the nature of the crime, the court declined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail and rejected the application. (N.R. Borkar, J., High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; decided 20.02.2026.)

926-aba-416-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 416 OF 2026

Abdul Ibrahim Khan and Anr. …Applicants

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Vijay Kurle a/w Adv. Sonal Manchekar a/w Adv. Vikas Pawar, Mr. Rahul Yadav, Mr. Jayendra Manchekar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. B. V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 20.02.2026.

P.C. :

1. This is an application for Anticipatory Bail.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 224 of 2025 registered at Dahanu Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, & 474 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicants had availed loans of Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- from Janta Co-

operative Bank Limited and for availing the said loans, the Pramod S.Lakare

1/3

926-aba-416-2026.doc

applicants had forged the signatures of the first informant as a guarantor to the said loans, though the first informant was out of India during the relevant period.

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

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.1 and the first informant were good friends. It is submitted that the applicant No.1 stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by the first informant. It is submitted that the false allegations are made against the present applicants with some ulterior motive. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the bank has no grievance in relation to the loans in question. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation.

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState submits that there is a documentary evidence to show that, during the relevant period when the application for loan was Pramod S.Lakare

2/3

926-aba-416-2026.doc

submitted, the first informant was out of India. It is submitted that the first informant came to know about the alleged forgery when he received the notice from the bank in respect of non-payment of installments by the applicants. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.

According to the applicants themselves, the first informant was the friend of the applicant No.1. Thus, there appears to be no reason for him to make false allegations. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. The application is rejected.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Pramod S.Lakare

3/3