20-BA-2212-2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad v.s State.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2212 OF 2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad And Anr ... Applicants. Vs. The State Of Maharashtra ... Respondent. --- Mr. Abhishek Yende a/w Sejal Todkar, Sagar Paspohe for the Applicant. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent/State. Mr. Shantanu Katkar a/w Mr. Kedar Nhavkar for the Intervener. --- CORAM : ASHWIN D.BHOBE, J. DATE : 1st JULY, 2025. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Yende, learned advocate for the Applicants and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the Respondent State. 2. Mr. Shantanu Katkar, learned advocate for the Intervener appears and seeks leave to intervene in the present matter, on the ground of he being the Complainant. Mr. Abhishek Yende, learned advocate for the Applicant does not object to Mr. Shantanu Katkar, addressing the Court on behalf of the Complainant, as such Mr. Shantanu Katkar was heard in the matter. 3. By the present Bail Application, filed under Section 483 Harish 1 of 7 2025:BHC-AS:26401 20-BA-2212-2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad v.s State.odt of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNNS), the Applicant is seeking bail in connection with Cr. No. 325/2025, registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur, for the offences punishable under Section 3(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. There are two accused in the present crime. 4. FIR has been registered on the complaint of Raghunath Anand Rokade (Complainant). Case of the Prosecution is that the Applicants entered into an agreement with the Complainant to purchase property situated in Solapur. Said agreement made reference to pendency of a suit in respect of the subject property. On 16th March 2025, Complainant executed a sale deed in favour of the Applicants, which deed was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Solapur. Copy of the sale deed furnished to the Complainant, at page no. 7 made reference to a clause, which according to the Complainant did not form part of the sale deed at the time of its execution. Thus, an offence of cheating, creating false/forged and bogus sale deed was registered against the Applicants, on 11th April 2025. 5. Applicants were arrested on 12th April 2025, since then, the Applicants are in jail. Bail Application No.519/2025 filed by the Harish 2 of 7 20-BA-2212-2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad v.s State.odt Applicants before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed on 9th May, 2025. 6. Mr. Abhishek Yende, learned advocate for the Applicants submits that the allegations made in the above said crime are purely civil in nature. He submits that the allegations of forgery or creating a forged document as alleged by the Complainant are false. He submits that the sale deed dated 16th March 2025 is a registered document, signed and executed by the Complainant and the Applicants before the authority i.e. Sub-Registrar Solapur, that to in the presence of witnesses. He submits that that stamp duty and the execution charges in respect of the sale deed are borne by the Applicants. He submits that in addition the Applicants have paid part consideration to the Complainant. He submits that upon activation of the said clause, the property would stand reverted to the Complainant and the Applicants do not benefit from the said transaction. He submits that the copy of the sale deed dated 16th March 2025 (at page nos. 53 to 81 of the paper book) is the copy of sale deed which is available in the office of the Sub-Registrar. He clarifies that the alleged disputed clause in the sale deed at page no. 7 (61 of the paper book) is the clause which forms a part of the sale deed which is registered before the Sub- Harish 3 of 7 20-BA-2212-2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad v.s State.odt Registrar Solapur. He submits that the sale deed dated 16th March 2025 registered before the Sub-Registrar contains the clauses agreed by and between the Applicants and the Complainant. 7. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, the learned APP for the State, submits that the agreement to sale executed by the Applicants and the Complainant, which was prior in point of time to the sale deed made a reference to a pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.404/2024. 8. Mr. Shantanu Katkar, learned advocate for the Complainant submits that the insertion of clause on page no. 7 of the sale deed dated 16th March, 2025 pertaining to the transaction being rendered void in the event of any dispute in the title of the property, was a clause which was inserted by the Applicants subsequent to the execution of the sale deed. He submits that the Applicants are guilty of committing forgery and creating false documents by inserting the said clause on page no. 7 of the sale deed. He submits that the said clause was not typed in the sale deed at the time of signing and execution of the same before the Sub-Registrar Solapur. 9. I have perused the records with the assistance of the learned advocates for the parties. 10. Allegations made by the Complainant against the Harish 4 of 7 20-BA-2212-2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad v.s State.odt Applicants is forging of document i.e. inserting a clause in the sale deed dated 16th March 2025. Entire dispute revolves around clause at page no. 7 of the sale deed, which is alleged to have been subsequently inserted. Clause on page no. 7 of the sale deed dated 16th March 2025 is extracted herein below :- “lnjhy ‘ksrtfeuhckcr dks.kR;kgh U;k;ky;kr rdzkj o nkok izyafcr vlY;kps fun’kZukl vkysl rFkk lnjhy ‘ksrtfeuhps ljdkjh ekst.khe/;s {ks= deh HkjY;kl rlsp rkcsckcr okn o lel;k fuekZ.k >kY;kl R;kps fujkdj.k fygqu ns.kkj ;kauh fygqu ?ks.kkj ;kauk Rojhr d:u |ko;kps vlqu lnj ckchaps fuokj.k u >kY;kl fugqu ns.kkj ;kapk /kukns’k oVfoyk tk.kkj ukgh- rlsp lnj /kukns’k ckcrhr fygqu ?ks.kkj ;kaps fo:/n dks.krkgh nkok o rdzkj fugqu ns.kkj ;kauk djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- lcc fygqu ns.kkj ;kauk ekU; o dcqy vkgs-” 11. Prima facie, the allegations of subsequent insertions/interpolation of the above referred clause in the sale deed, a document which is signed and executed before the Sub-Registrar Solapur, appears to be improbable. Even if the said clause which is alleged to have been inserted subsequently is considered, then in such an event also the Complainant cannot claim any loss or prejudice, as the property would stand reverted to the Complainant. On the contrary, as submitted by Mr. Abhishek Yende, learned advocate for the Applicants, it is the Applicants who would be deprived the benefit Harish 5 of 7 20-BA-2212-2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad v.s State.odt of the sale deed. It appears that the Complainant has made an attempt to give a criminal favour to a dispute, which at the most would be a civil dispute. 12. Mr. Shantanu Katkar, learned advocate for the Complainant, fairly states that in the event an application for certified copy of the sale deed 16th March, 2025 is made to the office of the Sub-Registrar Solapur, what would be furnished is the copy of the sale deed as produced by the Applicants in the present application at page nos. 53 to 81 with the clause in dispute, on page no. 7 of the sale deed. Sale deed dated 16th March, 2025 is a registered document. There is a presumption, that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore prima facie would be valid in law. (see Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors.1). 13. Pertinently, the FIR does not make any allegation against either the Sub-Registrar, Solapur or against the any witness who are signatory to the said sale deed. 14. Considering the nature of the allegations, the documents placed on record, prima facie, no case is made out for detention or custody of the Applicants. 1 2006 (5) SCC 353. Harish 6 of 7 20-BA-2212-2025 Rahul Vishnu Lad v.s State.odt 15. In view of the above, the present Bail Application is allowed on the following conditions:- a) Applicants Rahul Vishnu Lad and Rajendra Tukaram Thorve be released on bail in connection with C. R. No.325 of 2025, registered with the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur, on their furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one or two local solvent sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. b) Applicants shall not tamper with evidence. 16. Bail Application No. 2212/2025 is allowed in the above said terms. [ ASHWIN D.BHOBE, J.] Harish 7 of 7 Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/07/2025 19:59:44