Dismissed¶22

Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jan 2026ABA/626/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (N.R. Borkar, J.), 17.01.2026, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 626 of 2025 — rejected. Applicant Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 82 of 2019, Amboli Police Station (Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467 & 468 read with 34 IPC; Section 3 MPID Act), arising from alleged cheating of purchasers of Gat Nos. 37 and 39 at Palghar through forged 7/12 extracts by partners of M/s. Dream Come True; alleged fraud of Rs. 13,96,000/-. Court found prima facie involvement and that the applicant was absconding since registration; anticipatory bail refused.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the papers of investigation, the Court found it prima facie apparent that the present applicant and other co-accused defrauded the first informant and other victims on the basis of forged 7/12 extracts. ¶22

Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 82 of 2019 registered at Amboli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467 & 468 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 of the MPID Act, should be released on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

It appeared to the Court that the applicant was absconding since the date of registration of the crime.

¶22

Key takeaways

Considering the nature of the crime, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail and accordingly rejected the application.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Rejected. The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 82 of 2019 registered at Amboli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467 & 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act. Prosecution case: the applicant, along with co-accused who were partners of M/s. Dream Come True, falsely represented themselves as owners of land bearing Gat Nos. 37 and 39 ad-measuring about 2.78 hectares at Palghar (actually owned by others) and, on the basis of forged 7/12 extracts, induced the first informant and other victims to purchase the land, defrauding them of Rs. 13,96,000/-. Perusing the papers of investigation, the Court found it prima facie apparent that the applicant and co-accused defrauded the victims on the basis of forged 7/12 extracts, noted that the applicant was absconding since the date of registration of the crime, and held that considering the nature of the crime he was not inclined to release him on anticipatory bail. Application rejected.

¶1

901-aba-626-25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 626 OF 2025

¶3

Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶4

...Respondent.

¶5

Adv. Shadab Khopekar a/w. Adv. Yash Sharma for the Applicant. Mr. V.N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent/State. API Satish Chaugale (IO) and PSI Nitin Kamble, Amboli Police Station is present.

¶6

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 17.01.2026.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.82 of 2019 registered at Amboli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467 & 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) .

¶10

It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant, along with other co-accused, who were Partners in Partnership Firm namely M/s. Dream Come True, falsely represented to the first informant and other victims that they are the owners of the land bearing Gat Nos. 37 and 39 ad-measuring about 2.78

1/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

901-aba-626-25.doc

hectares at Palghar. Whereas, in fact, the said land was owned by Anusaya Bhaskar Tambadi, Saku Anusaya and Pandu Ganeshkar. It is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused, on the basis of forged 7/12 extracts, had induced the first informant and other victims to purchase the said land and defrauded them to the tune of Rs. 13,96,000/-.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the main allegations are against the co-accused Vijay Tolani. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has already filed the chargesheet against the other co-accused. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that the applicant is absconding since the date of registration of the crime. It is further submitted that the stamp papers for preparing the agreements were purchased by the present applicant. Learned APP submits that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

I have perused the papers of investigation. Prima facie , it appears that the present applicant and other co-accused have

2/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

901-aba-626-25.doc

defrauded the first informant and other victims on the basis of forged 7/12 extract. It appears that the applicant is absconding since the date of registration of the crime. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Application is rejected.

¶23

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶24

3/3

¶25

Dinesh S. Sherla

Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh 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

Jitendra Maganlal Yadav and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Dheeraj Mamtaj Kedare vs State of Maharashtra

Atish Aslam Nachan vs State of Maharashtra

Kamal Nayan Vinay Shankar Dubey vs U T Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Shrish G Dikshit vs State of Maharashtra

Yatin Pandharinath Vekhande vs Pranali Yatin Vekhande