22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc Amberkar 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. 1767 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1988 OF 2026 Santosh Pandurang Rathod .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1780 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2985 OF 2026 Santosh Pandurang Rathod .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4263 OF 2025 Ravikant Pandurang Rathod .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Shailesh S. Kharat Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 and Bail Application No.1767 of 2026.  Mr. Sandeep Sawant, Advocate for Intervenor.  Mr. Prasad Arun Kamthe i/b. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, Advocates for Applicant in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025.  Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.  API Ashwini Patil, Ambegave Police Station, Pune City. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kharat learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 and Bail Application No.1767 of 2026, 1 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate for Intervenor, Mr. Kamthe learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 and Ms. Talhar learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 is filed by Applicant – Santosh Pandurang Rathod who is arraigned as Accused No.2 in CR No.894 of 2024 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for offenses punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 concerning an alleged transaction of sale / conveyance of land dated 01.01.2021. First Information Report is filed on 25.10.2024 and he was arrested on 28.05.2025. Interim Application No.1988 of 2026 is filed in Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 by one Mangal Govind Sahaje. She is Intervenor / Complainant / First Informant. She is heard. 3. Facts qua both Complainants are different. However they pertain to property dealt with by both Accused persons in the same layout area with the Complainants through their Company. 4. Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 is filed by Applicant – Santosh Pandurang Rathod who is arraigned as Accused No.2 in CR No.893 of 2024 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for offenses punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 concerning an alleged transaction of sale / conveyance of land dated 01.01.2021. First Information Report is filed on 25.10.2024 2 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc and he was arrested on 28.05.2025. Interim Application No.2985 of 2026 is filed in Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 by one Ratnaprabha Jaysingh Mate. She is Intervenor / Complainant / First Informant. She is heard. 5. Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 if filed by Applicant – Ravikant Pandurang Rathod who is arraigned as Accused No.1 in CR No.894 of 2024 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for offenses punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 concerning an alleged transaction of sale / conveyance of land dated 01.01.2021. First Information Report is filed on 25.10.2024 and he was arrested on 28.05.2025. 6. Both Applicants i.e. Santosh Pandurang Rathod and Ravikant Pandurang Rathod have been in judicial custody for more that 15 months. The maximum punishment which would be attributable to the Applicants even if they are convicted would be upto 7 years. Be that as it may, what is intriguing is that this is a purely civil lis. Even while the matter is argued, Complainants represented by learned Advocate Mr. Sawant has submitted to the Court that if Complainant monies are returned, Complainant would have no grievance with the Applicants. 7. Unfortunately this Court’s consideration is on the basis of the facts made out in the case before Court and not on the basis of the Complainant’s desire to settle scores and make recovery from the 3 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc Applicants by resorting to filing a criminal case. Prima facie it is seen that the layout of the plots was effected by Applicants and sold to more that 21 persons out of which Complainant in CR No.894 of 2024 is one such person. The Complainant’s apprehension is that there is improper demarcation of 2 – 3 Gat Nos. on the basis of which a certain Gat Number which belongs to the Government is a Gat Number on which part of the layout is designed. However with regard to this allegation by the Complainant, there is no sanction or issue raised by the Government and the Complaint is filed on apprehension and some village maps are relied upon. 8. The Complainant is well entrenched and staying in her bungalow / farmhouse which is already constructed and handed over to her and is a member of the Cooperative Housing Society but on the basis of mere apprehension that Government may in future take action criminal complaint is filed. In any event as far as the lis is concerned, this is a purely civil dispute and has no element of criminality whatsoever in it. Even otherwise since the Complainant is already in possession of the property, she can always approach the appropriate Civil Court and seek injunctive reliefs in accordance with law if there is any threat as envisaged by her. The unfortunate part is that the Complainant, despite being a member of the Cooperative Housing Society which was originally conceived and developed by Applicant is residing in her Bungalow as a member of the Society. Even otherwise if 4 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc she has any dispute, her remedy lies before the Competent Authority established under the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 by filing an appropriate dispute application in accordance with law. There are Memorandum of Understanding and Agreements which are registered and she can take recourse to law while seeking appropriate reliefs. In the second CR No.893 of 2024, complainant is alleging breach of promise and seeks specific performance from Accused persons. 9. The Applicants have spent 15 months pre–trial incarceration. Such facts and circumstances enable me to decide these 3 Bail Applications forthwith as arguable case is made out by Mr. Kharat. Custody of Applicant is not required. They both can stand trial and cooperate with the investigation. 10. Case of Complainant in First Information Report bearing No.894 of 2024 is that Santosh Pandurang Rathod and Ravikant Pandurang Rathod misrepresented to her by including 33 Guntas of land in Gat No.146 which was Government land when only Gat No.144 was owned by them, took approximately Rs.48.25 lakhs and built a farmhouse / bungalow near backwaters of Bhatghar Dharana Dam through their company Greenway Developers. The said Complainant is already in possession of her farmhouse / bungalow and is a member of the Cooperative Housing Society therein. 5 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc 11. In so far as First Information Report bearing No.893 of 2024 is concerned, the Complainant therein has alleged that both Santosh Pandurang Rathod and Ravikant Pandurang Rathod through their company Greenway Developers agreed to sell 89 Guntas of land for Rs.32 lakhs to her but executed registered Sale Deed for 23 Guntas only and did not convey balance land. In the First Information Report, statement, Complainant has stated that either balance land be conveyed or if not so conveyed then Rs.19.50 lakhs should be returned to her. Hence she filed the complaint and registered First Information Report. In so far as case of the Complainant is concerned, it is based on her statement in the complaint and the amount she has given to Greenway Developers through both accused persons. She has alleged breach of promise. Hence the criminality can only be proved at trial, if any. The tenor of statement in First Information Report is such that criminal proceedings are invoked as a matter of pressure tactics by Complainant. If Complainant was that much concerned she should not have accepted and executed registered conveyance for 23 Guntas and insisted upon 89 Guntas and in normal parlance any prudent person would have addressed a letter / legal notice to the Developer for the balance area. Nothing of that sort is done. 12. Mr. Sawant has argued on the basis that if consideration amount is returned back to Complainant then she will have no grievance. The Criminal Court and Bail proceedings cannot be allowed to be used for 6 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc recovery and settlement per se. The Complainant has also alleged that Greenway Developers received Rs.5 lakhs from her sister and did not deliver the land to her. The sister has not filed any complaint. According to Complainant, certain land was purchased by accused persons in 2021 and it was agreed to be transferred to the Complainant and therefore Complainant paid Applicants Rs.32 lakhs. This entire transaction is therefore a civil dispute for which Complainant could have approached the Civil Court and filed appropriate proceedings qua the subject land in question and obtained appropriate injunctive reliefs. 13. In the facts of both aforesaid cases by the Complainants, prima facie both Complainants have approached the Criminal Court by intervention to seek recovery of their amounts which cannot be permitted. Their lis is purely civil in nature. I have heard both Interim Applications of Complainants and in view of above reasons, comprehensively dismiss their Intervention Applications. Needless to state that both Complainants are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for recovery or any injunctive relief that may be available to them in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above, all 3 Bail Applications filed by both accused persons in First Information Report CR No.893 of 2024 and First Information Report CR No.894 of 2024 are allowed. Both Intervention 7 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc Applications are dismissed. 15. In view of the above the following order is passed:- (i) Applicant – Accused No.1 - Ravikant Pandurang Rathod in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with C.R. No.894 of 2024 and C.R. No.893 of 2024; (ii) Applicant – Accused No.1 - Ravikant Pandurang Rathod in Bail Application No.4263 of 2025 is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each (Rs. Twenty Five each only) with one or two sureties of the like amount; (iii) Applicant – Accused No.2 - Santosh Pandurang Rathod in Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 and Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 in connection with C.R. No.894 of 2024 and C.R. No.893 of 2024 is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with both First Information Reports bearing numbers C.R. No.894 of 2024 and C.R. No.893 of 2024; (iv) Applicant – Accused No.2 – Santosh Pandurang Rathod in Bail Application No.1767 of 2026 and Bail Application No.1780 of 2026 is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each (Rs. 8 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc Twenty Five each only) with one or two sureties of the like amount; (v) Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, once every month on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; (vi) Applicants shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order; (vii) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (viii)Applicants shall not influence with any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (ix) Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (x) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the Applicants. 16. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the submissions 9 of 10 22.BA.1767.2026 +2.doc made and the material placed before this Court. 17. Bail Application Nos.1767 of 2026, 1780 of 2026 and 4263 of 2025 are allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Interim Application Nos.1988 of 2026 and 2985 of 2025 are dismissed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Amberkar 10 of 10 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.08.26 12:25:45 +0530