1 10 ABA 719.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 719/2026 (Gautam Singh s/o Shri Omprakash Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V. S. Mishra, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 05/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.473/2025 registered with Police Station Sadar, Dist. Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 341(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused, allegedly cheated the informant. The co-accused posed himself as an office bearer, namely, the Treasurer of the Nagpur Diocesan Trust Association. An assurance was given to the informant that as the said property in question was held in the name of the applicant, the existing lease in respect thereof would be cancelled and a fresh lease would be 2 10 ABA 719.26.odt executed in favour of the informant for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Against the said amount, a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- was allegedly received by the co-accused as 'Pagadi'. It is further alleged that the co-accused, by forging a change report purportedly issued by the office of the Charity Commissioner and by forging the signature of the office bearer on the No Objection Certificate/consent letter and resolution, executed the said deed. On 29/08/2024, the co-accused and the applicant allegedly executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the informant and received a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 10,00,000/- by cheque. Thereafter, on 30/08/2024, a notarized lease agreement was allegedly tendered by the co-accused. In furtherance of the said transaction, a Business Conduct Agreement was also executed with the informant on 13/09/2024, against which a further sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was allegedly received by the accused persons. It is alleged that despite receiving the aforesaid amounts, neither was the amount returned to the informant nor was possession of the property handed over to him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the First Information Report (“FIR”) came to be registered on 07/08/2025. 3 10 ABA 719.26.odt 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that initially, the Nagpur Diocesan Trust Association (“NDTA”) had entered into a lease agreement with the present applicant in the year 2018. So far as the present FIR is concerned, it is alleged that the present applicant, in collusion with the main accused, Prashant Satralkar, had duped the informant of an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The said Prashant Satralkar, posing himself as the Secretary/Treasurer of the NDTA, had proposed to enter into a business agreement with the informant. The learned Counsel submits that, had the applicant intended to dupe the informant, he would have directly received the amount from him. However, it is submitted that it was the said Prashant Satralkar, who posed himself as the Treasurer of the Trust, and entered into an agreement with the informant. Thereafter, the informant and the present applicant executed a deed of cancellation-cum-possession. He further submits that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as it is, the principal allegations are against Prashant Satralkar and not against the present applicant. Pursuant to the entire transaction, possession of the property was also handed over to the informant. Therefore, he submits that no offence has been committed by the 4 10 ABA 719.26.odt present applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances, he prays that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, by filing an affidavit-in-reply, the learned A.P.P. opposes the application and submits that, during the course of investigation, it transpired that the applicant had represented himself as the leaseholder of the property in question and, in collusion with the co- accused, Prashant Satralkar, had entered into an agreement for cancellation of the lease deed-cum- possession and a Business Conduct Agreement with the informant. The learned A.P.P. further submits that the co- accused, Prashant Satralkar, had represented himself as the Treasurer of the NDTA. The documents collected during the course of investigation demonstrate that the applicant had actively participated in the entire transaction in collusion with the co-accused, Prashant Satralkar. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was received from the informant by way of cheque and a further amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was received in cash. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and the role attributed to the applicant, the learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. 5 10 ABA 719.26.odt 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by both sides, apparently, it appears that initially, the applicant had entered into a lease agreement with the NDTA in the year 2018 and said property was in the possession of the present applicant. Another FIR was also registered in the year 2020 against the present applicant wherein similar allegations have been attributed to him. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that the property in question is a commercial property bearing House No. 394/A, City Survey No. 1607, Sheet No. 32/27, Khasra No. 89, Mouza Sitabuldi, Ward No. 66, admeasuring 2872 sq. ft., situated at Sadar, Nagpur. It further appears that the said property was leased for a period of 30 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/-. The informant was also a tenant in the said building. It appears that accused No. 1, i.e. Prashant Satralkar, is a property dealer who had posed himself as the Treasurer of the said NDTA. He had shown certain documents, including the change report, no-objection certificates, consent letters and resolutions pertaining to the NDTA and the property in question, to the informant. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding came to be executed between the informant and the applicant in respect of the said property for a total 6 10 ABA 719.26.odt consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Pursuant to the said Memorandum of Understanding, the informant paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 10,00,000/- by cheque. Thereafter, on 30/08/2024, two separate agreements came to be executed. The first was a lease deed executed between Prashant Satralkar who was shown to be acting on behalf of the NDTA and the informant for granting lease in favour of the informant for a period of 30 years. The present applicant was also a signatory to the said lease deed in the capacity of an attesting witness. The second agreement was a deed of cancellation-cum-possession executed between the applicant and the informant, wherein it was stated that the applicant had cancelled his subsisting lease in respect of the said property and handed over possession thereof to the informant. Considering the allegations in their entirety, it appears that the present applicant was in possession of the said property pursuant to the lease agreement executed in the year 2018. Now, the position which could be gathered from the submissions made by both sides is that the informant has been put in possession of the property pursuant to the execution of various documents and lease agreement. Under such circumstances, considering the aforesaid position, in my 7 10 ABA 719.26.odt opinion, the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (I) Application is allowed and disposed of (II) In the event of arrest, the applicant Gautam Singh s/o Shri Omprakash Singh be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.473/2025 registered with Police Station Sadar, Dist. Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 341(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (III) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. or as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (IV) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 8. The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 18:36:10