Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18200 (BOM)

RAVINDRA BALKRISHNA TARU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

BA/3850/2026 · 2026-10-13

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

17.BA.3850.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3850 OF 2026 Ravindra Balkrishna Taru .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate i/by Samay Pawar for Applicant.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.  PSI – Mr. Gorakhnath Surase, Bavdhan Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad present. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.523 of 2025 registered with Bavdhan Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 59, 60 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.3 in the present crime. First Information Report (FIR) is registered on 06.11.2025 with regard to registration of a document in the office of Applicant where he was functioning as the Sub-registrar of Assurances in Pune. Property 1 of 5 17.BA.3850.2026.doc bearing Survey No.88 in village Mundhwa, Pune stood mutated in the name of Mumbai Sarkar. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 held a Power of Attorney on behalf of the watandars of the subject Survey No.88 and Accused No.2 held a Power of Attorney on behalf of a Company called Amedia, who was the purchaser. The transaction of sale and purchase of this land was effected by virtue of a registered document and it was registered in the presence of Applicant in his office by following the due process of law by the constituted Attorneys of the respective parties. 4. Subsequently, it is learnt that when the data entry operator who was carrying out the registration process brought it to the notice of Applicant that the property stood mutated in the name of Mumbai Sarkar in the holder's column, she was asked to skip the same and register the document in question. The learned Advocate Mr. Joshi informs the Court that the concerned document has been cancelled subsequently in Civil Court proceedings. 5. Further, dealing with watandar's land on the basis of alleged forged and fabricated Power of Attorney by other accused persons is the subject matter of the present offence. Indictment of Applicant is for his role as Sub-registrar of Assurances, he having registered the said document. Though it is argued vehemently by Mr. Karmarkar that by virtue of such registration, Applicant has caused a humongous loss of 2 of 5 17.BA.3850.2026.doc Rs.21 crore to the Government, the said statement is made across the bar without substantiation. Once the said document is cancelled, to the extent of any loss suffered by the Government would be notional. 6. It is prima facie seen that, notwithstanding the mutation entries and the holder of the land, the applicant's duty was to register a report under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act for commencing an inquiry which Applicant did not do and thereby for which he has been indicted. Applicant's complicity in the crime will undoubtedly be proved at trial. Applicant is incarcerated since 07.12.2025. The further custody of Applicant is not required since investigation is completed. 7. All contentions of the prosecution are otherwise kept open. 8. Additionally, it is also seen that there is no recovery at the instance of the Applicant, nor it is prosecution case that Applicant benefited monetarily in any respect with regard to the subject transaction. Applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and has no criminal antecedents which persuades me to consider his case for grant him bail and even otherwise on the ground of parity with Accused No.1 having been released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to consider the case of Applicant for bail on all the above grounds. 9. In view of above prima facie observations and findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- 3 of 5 17.BA.3850.2026.doc (i) Applicant – Ravindra Balkrishna Taru is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with CR. No.523 of 2025; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at concerned Police Station, once every month, on the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail; (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; 4 of 5 17.BA.3850.2026.doc (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current residential address and mobile telephone number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change in his residential address or mobile telephone number, as and when such change occurs; and (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicant. 10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 11. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 5 of 5 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.10.13 20:18:48 +0530