1 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [A.B.A.] NO. 700 OF 2026 Mukeshkumar S/o Tannumal Karda -- VERSUS -- The State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. Amit Band, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. H.D. Marathe, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. Mr. P.K. Sathianathan, Advocate for Assist to Prosecution. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2026. Heard. 2. Apprehending arrest, the applicant has approached this Court in connection with Crime No.686/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 61, 336(3)(4), 338, 340(2) and 319 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Goregaon, District Gondia 3. It is the case of the complainant that the present applicant, on 08/02/2022, allegedly executed a forged and fabricated Power of Attorney by impersonating his father, namely, Tannumal Karda, before the Sub-Registrar, Raipur, and, on the basis of the said document, executed various documents Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:13934 2 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 in his own favour. The complainant further alleged that, upon verification of the said Power of Attorney by a handwriting expert, it was found that the document did not bear the genuine signature of Tannumal Karda. Accordingly, alleging that the applicant had prepared the forged and fabricated Power of Attorney and had used the same for execution of the sale deed, the complainant lodged a private complaint, pursuant to which the offence came to be registered against the accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a dispute between the applicant and his real brother, Gangaram, in respect of the property. Their father, Tannumal, was the absolute owner of those properties, which were gifted to him. The uncle of the present applicant, Ramesh, had also gifted two properties to the applicant. On those lands, the applicant, his father, and his brother, Gangaram, started a rice mill under two different firms, wherein Gangaram was having 33% and 45% shares in the two firms. Those firms are run in the name of M/s. Arathmal Sadhumal Karda and M/s. Rameshkumar Arathmal Karda respectively. He submits that, in the name of the said firms, they had obtained a loan of Rs.5,18,00,000/- from SBI Bank. All the properties were mortgaged with the bank, however, at a later point of time, due to losses in the business, they were not able to repay the amount to the bank, and the accounts became NPA. The outstanding amount was Rs.8,50,00,000/-. The learned counsel further Piyush Mahajan 3 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 submits that, under the OTS scheme, the outstanding amount of Rs.8,50,00,000/- was reduced to Rs.4,50,00,000/-. As the properties were mortgaged with the bank, they requested the bank that the applicant and his father would sell the said land, and accordingly, they entered into an agreement to sell for consideration of Rs.6,00,00,000/-. Accordingly, the proposed purchaser, Barewar, paid the entire amount to the bank. On 24/12/2024, the bank issued a No Objection Certificate and also removed the charge. The remaining amount was also paid to the applicant and his father, however, only Rs.50,00,000/- remained outstanding. He submits that, as soon as the charge was removed from the property, the brother, Gangaram, started raising disputes in respect of the said properties. He further submits that Gangaram had also kidnapped their father, and accordingly, the applicant lodged a complaint at the Police Station on 23/12/2021. As the sale deed was not executed in favour of the said Barewar, the father executed a Power of Attorney on 08/02/2022 in favour of the present applicant, and accordingly, on 18/05/2022, the sale deed was executed. The brother Gangaram filed several complaints against the applicant, stating that the Power of Attorney executed on 08/02/2022 was forged. Not only that he also filed criminal complaints at the Goregaon Police Station, the Raipur Police Station in the State of Chhattisgarh, and with the SDPO, Goregaon, but also filed a civil suit against the applicant, his father, and the purchaser, seeking declaration that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Defendant No. 1, i.e., the present Piyush Mahajan 4 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 applicant, at the Sub-Registrar, Raipur, on 08/02/2022 is false, forged, and fabricated and is not binding to the parties of the suit. He has also sought a declaration that the sale deeds bearing Nos. 453/2022 and 454/2022, executed before the Sub- Registrar, Goregaon, are false and illegal, and therefore, not binding on the plaintiff, and further other reliefs. He further points out that, in fact, the liability of Gangaram, after the OTS scheme as per his shares was to the tune of Rs.1,59,54,000/-. However, even that amount was paid by the applicant by selling the said land. In fact, he submits that the lands in dispute are exclusively owned by the applicant and his father and it has nothing to do with the brother Gangaram. Under such circumstances, he submits that, in spite of payment of share of Gangaram, Gangaram started raising disputes as soon as the amount was paid to the bank and the charge was removed. Prior to that, Gangaram kept quite. 5. The brother, Gangaram, also started making complaints in the name of their father. For that purpose, he has produced several documents on record, including the statement of their father, Tannumal, wherein he specifically stated that he had not made any complaint. The complaints lodged at the Goregaon Police Station and before the SDPO, an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, and report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police stating that no offence was made out and that the dispute is of civil in nature, for that purpose, the concerned party can approach the Court Piyush Mahajan 5 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 seeking appropriate directions. He further submits that private complaint was filed against the present applicant by his brother, Gangaram, on 14/08/2025, seeking a direction under Section 175 of the BNSS for registration of an FIR. However, the Magistrate was pleased to call the report from the Police Station, and accordingly, report was submitted stating that no criminal offence is made out and, in fact, the dispute is civil in nature. Still the Court passed an order directing the registration of an FIR, and accordingly, the FIR was registered against the present applicant. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail, considering the nature of the allegations. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel assisting the prosecution vehemently oppose the application and submit that, apparently, the applicant has forged the Aadhaar Card as well as the Power of Attorney dated 08/02/2022. They have invited my attention to several complaints made by the father, Tannumal, stating that he had not executed the said Power of Attorney. They further submit that the applicant has impersonated his father and produced a fictitious person as Tannumal before the Sub-Registrar, and accordingly, the Power of Attorney was executed. They further submit that, considering the seriousness of the crime, custodial interrogation would be necessary to recover the forged Power of Attorney. The learned counsel, Mr. Sathianathan, has relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Ratilal Piyush Mahajan 6 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 Patil -Vrs.- The State of Maharashtra (Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1693/2025, dated 01/08/2025) and in the case of Harvindersingh Jogindersingh Vijan -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra, AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 3057, to buttress his submissions. Therefore, both the learned counsel prayed for rejection of the application. 6. I have considered the submissions of both sides at length. I have also perused the record placed before me. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that the brother, Gangaram, has already filed a suit before the competent Court seeking several reliefs, out of which one relates to a declaration that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Defendant No.1, i.e., the present applicant, before the Sub-Registrar, Raipur, on 08/02/2022, is false, forged, and fabricated. The second prayer in the suit is for a declaration that the sale deeds bearing Nos. 453/2022 and 454/2022 are also false and illegal. Both these reliefs touches to the present subject matter, and is still pending. It further appears that the brother, Gangaram, has also lodged several complaints at the Police Stations at Goregaon and Raipur, as well as before the SDPO. It appears from the record that the SDPO conducted a detailed inquiry by recording the statement of the father, Tannumal, wherein it was specifically stated that Tannumal had executed Power of Attorney on 08/02/2022. Accordingly, the SDPO submitted a closure report to the Superintendent of Police, stating that there is no substance in the complaint filed by Gangaram. Accordingly, Piyush Mahajan 7 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 it appears that the said proceedings were closed. Thereafter, another Power of Attorney was executed by the father, Tannumal, on 18/05/2022, confirming the earlier Power of Attorney dated 08/02/2022. Perusal of the entire papers of the investigation, it appears that a rice mill was started on the said properties by the father, Tannumal, the present applicant, and the brother, Gangaram. The rice mill was operated through the firms M/s. Arathmal Sadhumal Karda and M/s. Rameshkumar Karda, wherein share of Gangaram was 33% and 45%, respectively. It further appears that both firms had obtained loans to the tune of Rs.5,18,00,000/-. All the properties were mortgaged with the bank, however, due to business losses, the accounts became NPA, and the outstanding loan amount was Rs.8,50,00,000/-. As the properties were mortgaged with the bank, the bank started to auction the said properties. However, the applicant requested the bank not to auction the properties and to permit them to sell the said lands. Accordingly, it appears that the father and the present applicant executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Barewar. Thereafter, on 24/12/2020, the bank has given No Objection Certificate and removed charge, as the payment was received from the proposed purchaser, Barewar. It further appears that, as soon as the charge was removed from the said properties, disputes arose between the applicant and his brother, Gangaram, and restrained the applicant and his father from selling the said lands and executing the sale deed in favour of Barewar. However, when they declined, Gangaram started filing applications with Piyush Mahajan 8 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 different authorities. It further appears that the sale deed was executed by the applicant on the basis of the Power of Attorney dated 08/02/2022 in favour of Barewar. As was observed above, several complaints were filed by the brother, Gangaram, before different police stations. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer conducted inquiry on the said complaints, and accordingly, came to the conclusion that there is no substance in those complaints and the dispute is civil in nature. Thereafter, Gangaram filed private complaint. Even at the initial stage, it appears that the Magistrate called report from the Police Station, wherein it was stated that there is no criminal case and the dispute is of civil in nature. However, thereafter, the Magistrate issued direction for registration of the FIR. So far as the, the judgments relied upon by Mr. Sathianathan are concerned, those are not applicable to the present case, as the facts of those cases and the facts of the present case are altogether different. Considering the entire background of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that a case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of; (ii) The order dated 07/08/2026 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions as incorporated in the said order; Piyush Mahajan 9 22-Cr.ABA-700-2026 (iii) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of; (iv) 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.) Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/10/2026 16:20:30