1 14 ABA 494.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO.494 OF 2026 [Mohammad Mushtaque Mohammad Isa .vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Jalgaon (Jamod), Dist. Buldhana] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.V. Rai, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. K.R. Lule, APP for Non-Applicant/State. Mr. H.R. Gadhia, Advocate (Assist to Prosecution). …………. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE : 02-07-2026. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking the anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.0284/2026 registered with Police Station Jalgaon (Jamod), District-Budhana for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Sagar Madhukar Gandhi lodged the police complaint alleging that along with him Manish Bhikamchand Gandhi, Ashish Purushottam Rathi and Bhushan Purushottam Rathi collectively purchased one agricultural land at Mouza-Khelsonje bearing Gat. No.52/1, ad-measuring 0.84 HR. The said land was purchased by the registered sale deed and after the purchase, the same was converted into non-agriculture land. It is also pointed out in the complaint that one of the purchaser amongst them namely Ashish Purushottam Rathi expired on 26.7.2025 and on his place the name of his father as a co-owner is recorded in the record. 2026:BHC-NAG:8347 2 14 ABA 494.26.odt 4. According to the complainant, with an intention to grab the property, the present applicant has prepared a bogus and forged agreement of sale dated 28.11.2024, wherein he has shown the complainant is ready to sell out the said property to him and obtained the amount towards the transaction. According to the complainant, the agreement of sale, which is prepared by the applicant being a forged and fabricated document, they are cheated in the matter and, therefore, the law set in motion against the present applicant in the matter. 5. The applicant, who approached before this court, came with a submission that the complainant is dealing in the business of sale and purchase of land property. The applicant is the estate broker. In various transactions applicant being well conversant with them stood witness of document executed on behalf of them. To demonstrate this fact he possess the documents wherein the applicant stand as a witness and signed on various documents prepared by the parties with other persons. 6. According to the applicant, agreement of sale was executed on 28.11.2024. The applicant further pointed out that as per the agreement of sale dated 28.11.2024, the date of execution of sale deed was fixed as 25.9.2026. The present applicant to avoid the execution of sale has misused one of the stamp paper which was available with complainant as there were various transactions took place between them as both were involved in the transaction of sale and purchase of the property. There is a possibility that the bogus document is prepared and now the complainant on that basis lodged complaint against the present applicant. 3 14 ABA 494.26.odt 7. The applicant also pointed out that under the provisions of Money Lending act, he has lodged the complaint against one Manish Gandhi and Bhushan Rathi on 27.3.2026. As such, according to him, their relations were strained due to some financial transactions and out of this the present complaint is lodged against him in the matter. 8. The learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has strongly opposed this bail application and relied upon the documents produced by applicant and copy available with complainant. According to them, same clearly demonstrates that both the documents are not matching with each other and out of two documents one is forged one. According to them, investigation is at preliminary stage. After the full fledged investigation, the proper conclusion can be drawn in the matter as to which document is forged in the present case. 9. In the present matter, the learned APP has relied upon the various judgments pointed out that in such cases where there is an intention to grab the property and forged documents are prepared in that regard, in such cases, the custody is required to reach to the logical conclusion to the Investigation Officer. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant has advanced the argument and pointed out that the entire allegations which are levelled against him are based upon the documentary evidence. According to the applicant, the entire documents now are in the custody of the Investigation Officer. He has to investigate on the basis of documentary evidence in the matter. Therefore, his custodial interrogation would not be necessary in the matter. 4 14 ABA 494.26.odt 11. In support of this submission, the applicant has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradip N. Sharma .vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the offence is related where the allegation is on the basis of official record and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention, then in that case, bail can be granted in the matter. It would be relevant to refer Para 18 of the judgment which reads as under : 18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody, subject to 5 14 ABA 494.26.odt conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry process.” 12. In the light of the factual aspect involved in the matter and the submission which is made, it is clear that the entire offence is revolving around the documentary evidence which was relied upon by both the parties. 13. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides and after scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court find that the prosecution failed to point out any substantive material or credible evidence to indicate that the Accused/Applicant poses a flight risk or that there is any apprehension of Applicant/Applicants absconding or evading the ongoing investigation. 14. So also prosecution failed to point out any specific need or justification for the custodial interrogation of the Applicant/Applicants in the matter. It is settled principle of law that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right and custodial interrogation must not be resorted as a matter of course or as a punitive measure before trial especially when the accused expresses a clear willingness to join and co-operate with the investigation. Accordingly, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No.0284/2026 registered with Police Station Jalgaon (Jamod) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant-Mohammad Mushtaque Mohammad Isa be released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond in 6 14 ABA 494.26.odt the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Thursday and Saturday in between 11.00 am to 3.00 pm till the date of filing chargesheet and cooperate in the investigation. (iii) The applicant shall, at the time of execution of bond, furnish his address and telephone/mobile number (s), to the investigating officer and the court concerned, and shall not change the same till the final disposal of the case. (iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any Police Officer. (v) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the investigating officer. (vi) In case of breach of any conditions, the learned trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) Gulande