17-ABA-1200-2025.doc Harish IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1200 OF 2025 Rajesh Kunverji Gala ...Applicant V/s. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Meghshyam Kocharekar a/w Mehul Rathod, Ms. Dhanashree Pawaskar i/b Mehul Rathod, for the Applicant. Ms. Poonam Bhosale, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Sagar Batawa, for the Respondent No.2. API - Mr. Shekhar Baramati, Malad Police Station is present. ________________________________________________________ CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , J. DATE : 07 TH JULY, 2026. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Meghshyam Kocharekar for the applicant, Advocate Ms. Poonam Bhosale learned APP for the State, and learned Advocate Sagar Batawa for the respondent no.2. 2. The applicant has filed the instant application under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 1030 of 2022 registered with 1/6 17-ABA-1200-2025.doc Malad Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the instance of the respondent no.2/complainant, an FIR came to be registered against this applicant on the basis of allegation that this applicant has transferred the shop which belonged to the complainant on the basis of a forged affidavit which was executed by this applicant in the year 1991. It is alleged in the report that the said affidavit dated 16th May, 1991 is forged because it mentions consumer number of electricity meter which was not in existence at that time, as the electric meter of the shop was connected on 10th February 1993. It is alleged that an agreement to sell was executed with respect to the said shop in the year 1997 in favour of the applicant, and the person who had executed the agreement viz. Mr. Parasmal Rathod, was not residing on the address mentioned in the said agreement. It is therefore, alleged that this applicant has committed offence of forgery and cheating on the basis of affidavit dated 16th May, 1991 and in view of these allegations, 2/6 17-ABA-1200-2025.doc the offence came to be registered against the applicant on 18th July, 2022. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Meghshyam Kocharekar counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute is mainly civil in nature and the FIR is lodged after an unexplained delay of about 18 years. He submits that the complainant has tried to dig up a stale dispute and, without any basis, has levelled frivolous allegations against this applicant. He submits that the applicant has purchased the said premises in the year 1997 by a registered sale deed, and as such, the applicant is falsely implicated in the instant crime. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that, this Court has granted an interim protection in his favour by order dated 21st, July 2025, and accordingly this applicant has attended the concerned police station and has provided his specimen handwriting, signature and co-operated with the investigating agency. As such, it is submitted that there cannot be any need for custodial interrogation of this applicant and that the interim protection granted earlier needs to be confirmed. 6. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent and learned advocate Mr. Sagar Batawa for the respondent no.2 opposed the 3/6 17-ABA-1200-2025.doc application. They submitted that there is discrepancy in the affidavit of the year 1991, which mentions the electric consumer number which was not in existence at that time, and since the no-objection certificate is granted on the basis of the said affidavit, the entire transaction in favour of the applicant of the year 1997 is suspicious. It is however not disputed that the allegations are with respect to forgery of the document of the year 1991 and further there is no dispute that the applicant has purchased the said room in the year 1997. 7. Learned APP for the respondent does not dispute the contention of the applicant that he has attended the police station as per the directions of this Court while granting interim protection by order dated 21st July, 2025. It is also not disputed that the applicant has extended co-operation by providing his specimen handwriting and signature. As such, in view of this, it is clear that the applicant has not misused the interim protection. 8. It has to be noted that the entire allegations against the applicant are with respect to the affidavit dated 16th May, 1991 and that too on account of the discrepancy about mention of an electric consumer number. The FIR is lodged against the applicant on 18th July, 2022 with respect to the affidavit dated 16th May, 1991 and thus 4/6 17-ABA-1200-2025.doc it clearly appears that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about 18 years. Apart from this, a perusal of allegations reveals that the dispute in question is essentially of a civil nature and there is no explanation of the complainant in not raising any grievance since the year 1993, which creates a doubt about the credibility of the allegations. 9. Considering the nature of allegations, the investigation can be conducted on the basis of forensic examination of the applicant’s handwriting and signature. Further, considering the fact that the applicant has extended co-operation by attending the investigating agency and has given his specimen handwriting and signature in accordance with the interim protection order passed by this Court, there does not appear any need for custodial interrogation of this applicant. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 21st July, 2025 records a statement made by the investigating officer that the applicant will not be arrested and in view of the said statement, the applicant was protected till today. Hence, I find that the interim protection granted earlier needs to be confirmed. Hence, I pass following order: : : O R D E R : : 5/6 17-ABA-1200-2025.doc i] In the event of arrest of the Applicant in Crime No. 1030 of 2022 registered with Malad Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code., he be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. ii] The Applicant is directed to co-operate with the investigating agency during the investigation and trial. iii] The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or evidence. 10. In view of the above, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 6/6