CriApp.18.2022.docx Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2022 Smita Balasaheb Madhavai .. Applicant Versus Bausaheb Rupchand Madhavai and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Prakash N. Wagh, Advocate for Applicant.  Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.  Ms. A.A. Takalkar, APP for Respondent No.5 – State.  PSI – D.M. Lokhande, Yeola City Police Station present. ................… CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2025. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Wagh, learned Advocate for Applicant, and Mr. Bankapur, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, and Ms. Takalkar, learned APP for Respondent No.5 – State. 2. The present Application is filed by Applicant - Original Complainant for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted by the learned Sessions Court, Niphad, Nashik to Respondents Nos.1 to 4 vide order dated 19.11.2021 in connection with FIR No.384 of 2021 registered with Yeola City Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) registered on 02.03.2021. The impugned order is appended at page No.43 of the Application. 1 of 6 CriApp.18.2022.docx 3. The facts borne out from the record are that on 15.07.2008, Applicant purchased agricultural land at Jalgaon bearing Gat Nos.27 and 28, which was looked after by Applicant's Husband and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – her brother in-laws. The said land was worth Rs.50 Lakhs at the time of purchase. Prima facie assertions made by Applicant are that in 2009, during the time she was residing in U.K. for the purpose of her son's education, Respondents dishonestly without consent and knowledge of the Applicant filed Partition Application in the Tahsildar Office by forging the signature of Applicant's husband on the Affidavit of NOC dated 03.07.2009. However, Applicant did not receive any notice for the same. 3.1. In the year 2021, Applicant came to know that her land had been partitioned in favour of Respondents Nos.1 to 4 and thereafter she registered FIR No.384 of 2021 against them. Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Anticipatory Bail Application No.463 of 2021 before the Sessions Court, Niphad. By order dated 19.11.2021, Anticipatory Bail Application was granted by the learned Sessions Court on condition to co- operate with the Investigation. 3.2. Being aggrieved, Applicant has filed the present Criminal Application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 by order dated 19.11.2021. 2 of 6 CriApp.18.2022.docx 4. Mr. Wagh, learned Advocate appearing for Applicant would submit that the Sessions Court has failed to consider that Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the sole beneficiaries from the alleged bogus Application filed for partition of the said land in question. He would submit that they have debarred Applicant from the right, title and interest in the said land without her consent and knowledge by forging her and her husband’s signature and has thereby committed grave fraud upon Applicant and her husband. 4.1. He would submit that it is an admitted fact that land in question was purchased by Applicant in the year 2008 despite which the notice issued by the Tahsildar for partition of land was not served upon the Applicant. However, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 produced another woman personifying as Applicant, prepared an Affidavit of her husband and got the said land partitioned. 4.2. He would submit that Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have misled the Tahsildar and dishonestly muted their names in the 7/12 extract of the said land. He would submit that the offence registered against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 is serious in nature thereby involving land which is worth Rs.10 crores. Hence he would urge the Court to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 and allow the present Criminal Application. 5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Bankapur, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Ms. Takalkar, learned APP for Respondent No.5 - State 3 of 6 CriApp.18.2022.docx support the Anticipatory bail granted to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by the learned Sessions Court, Niphad and would submit that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have been directed to co-operate with investigation. 5.1. They would submit that dispute between the parties is a long standing civil dispute and the relationship between the parties is that of close relatives. He would submit that Applicant and her husband have filed a counterclaim wherein they have specifically admitted that the land in question belongs to the Hindu Undivided Family (for short ‘HUF’). 5.2. He would submit that Respondents have in turn initiated both criminal and civil proceedings since the year 2020 against the Applicant and her husband regarding share in the disputed properties. He would submit that first complaint filed by the Applicant was after an unexplained delay of 12 years i.e. in the year 2021 which prima facie shows that it is was a complete afterthought with ulterior motives primarily filed as a counterblast to Respondent's legal action. 5.3. He would submit that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 15 of 2021 before the lower Court for declaration and injunction in respect of the subject land in question, which is pending adjudication. He would further submit that no fresh grounds have been made by Applicant for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail. 4 of 6 CriApp.18.2022.docx 6. I have heard Mr. Wagh, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Bankapur, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Ms. Takalkar, learned APP for Respondent No.5 - State and perused the record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court. 7. At the outset, it is seen that there is admittedly a long-standing civil and family dispute regarding multiple properties held in the names of various family members, including the Applicant and her husband. All parties are blood relatives and no third party is involved. It is seen that there are several other properties purchased and sold within this HUF by the parties to which claims are led. Therefore, they are matters of evidence and hence the parties have to prove it in the Civil Court. 8. It is seen that there is already a Special Civil Suit No.10 of 2021 filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 regarding entitlement and title based on registration of the Sale Deed. Unless any conspiracy arises these questions on fact can be decided in the trial. Mr. Wagh’s contention that Applicant is the sole acquirer of the subject property in question as her self acquired property on the basis of she having paid the funds can only be a matter of evidence to be proved in trial. If any imprimatur is giving by the Court on this aspect, it would hamper the Suit proceedings which are pending between the parties in regard to the subject property. 5 of 6 CriApp.18.2022.docx 6. It is settled law that once bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless supervening circumstances justify such action. There has to be a very strong circumstance for the Court to step in. Where disputed questions of facts are pleaded, then without trial and evidence Court cannot give its verdict merely on pleadings and documents. Hence in that view of the matter and aforesaid observations and findings which prima facie emanate from the record, the application for cancellation of Anticipatory bail is dismissed and the impugned order dated 19.11.2021 is upheld and confirmed. 7. Criminal Application is dismissed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 6 of 6 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.11.28 11:56:36 +0530