- 1 - aba1111.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 918 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1111 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2636 OF 2026 IN ABA/1111/2026 Manindarsingh Dharamsingh Jahagirdar ….Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra …..Respondent Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. D. M. Mane, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State. Mr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the informant. AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2708 OF 2026 IN ABA/1141/2026 Vitthal Kishan Rao Ghodke ..… Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent Mrs. A. N. Ansari, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State. Mr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the informant. AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1075 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2573 OF 2026 IN ABA/1075/2026 Ganesh Vaijnath Rukke ..… Applicant - 2 - aba1111.26.odt VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents ….. Mr. A. H. Dhupe Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State. Mr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the informant. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026. PER COURT : 1. At the outset, learned Counsel Mr. Gadhe seeks permission to assist learned APP in these matters. 2. Learned Counsels for Applicants record no objection for the same. 3. In view of this, learned Counsel Mr. Gadhe is permitted to assist learned APP. Criminal Application Nos. 2636/2026, 2708/2026 and 2573/2026 stand allowed. 4. Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0231/2026, registered with Ardhapur Police Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, - 3 - aba1111.26.odt 329(3), 352, 351(2), 61(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 338 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5. First Information Report indicates that the owners of the subject property made grievance with regard to fabrication of power of attorney by their close relatives and on the basis of said fabricated/forged power of attorney, agreement to sell came to be executed in favour of Applicant Ganesh Rakke. The informant, after getting knowledge of the said transaction and also about fabricated power of attorney, published notice in the newspaper intimating the public with regard to the same. Informant on fateful day came across the Applicants Manindarsingh and Vitthal who claimed agreement to sale being executed in their favour by Ganesh. They also claimed to be in possession of land in question. On the basis of said First Information Report, Applicants apprehend arrest. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant Manindarsingh submits that the Applicant is a purchaser of the property having no knowledge with regard to the obtainment of power of attorney or execution of agreement to sale on the basis of such power of attorney in favour of Applicant Ganesh. It is contended that - 4 - aba1111.26.odt Applicant Ganesh had paid consideration to the constituted attorney of the owners by bank transaction and as such this Applicant had no reason to enter into said transaction. It is contended that amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- came to be paid in cash which indicates the transaction being supported by payment of consideration. According to him, since the offence pertains to documentary evidence, custodial interrogation of Applicant Manindarsingh is not necessary. 7. Learned Counsel for Applicant Vitthal submits that though Applicant Vitthal was signatory to the agreement to sale executed in favour of Applicant Ganesh, he is not responsible for the contents of said document. Insofar as agreement to sale executed jointly in favour of Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh is concerned, it is contended that since the said transaction is supported by consideration, she claims that the liberty of Applicant deserves to be protected. 8. Learned Counsel for Applicant Ganesh contends that the amounts were paid by cheque to the executor of the document and it is only after realising the fact that this could be a case of execution of agreement on the basis of tented power of attorney, the post dated - 5 - aba1111.26.odt cheques issued were stopped. It is his contention that since Applicant Vitthal was the mediator of the said transaction, at his instance, agreement to sale came to be executed in favour Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh. He also claims that since the transaction revolves around documentary evidence, custodial interrogation of Applicant Ganesh is not necessary. He, however, specifically denies receipt of any consideration from Vitthal and Manindarsingh. 9. Learned APP and learned Counsel for informant opposed grant of relief to the Applicants. in order to support their submission, they drew attention of the Court to the fact that Applicant Ganesh initially had obtained the agreement on 19.04.2026 in respect of the same property from husband of Rekha. It is their contention that it is not possible that after executing the said agreement on 19.04.2026, within 10 to 11 days, another agreement is executed with Rekha accepting her to be the constituted attorney of the original owner. This, according to them, creates serious doubt. It is also contended that Applicant Ganesh inspite of knowledge of publication of notice with regard to fabrication of power of attorney, executed agreement to sale and tried to induct Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh in the - 6 - aba1111.26.odt property. This, according to them, clearly shows collusion between all the Applicants in order to grab the property of the informant. It is their further submission that in the Adhar card annexed to the power of attorney in question the address of the original owner is shown as Thane whereas in the original Adhar Card it is shown as Pune. This, according to them, is sufficient to indicate fabrication of power of attorney. They also claim that there are similar crimes registered the Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh. 10. Though it is sought to be argued that the present crime involves documentary evidence, prima facie perusal of the record indicates common intention and collusion between the Applicants in order to commit the crime in question. Record shows that Applicant Ganesh got executed the agreement from husband of Rekha on 19.04.2026 in respect of the subject property. Immediately thereafter, he entered into agreement with Rekha, who claims to be the constituted attorney of original owner, in respect of same property. The said agreement is witnessed by Applicant Vitthal in which favour Applicant Ganesh executed agreement to sale. These facts clearly indicate about the suspicious nature of transaction so also knowledge of all accused persons of the same. - 7 - aba1111.26.odt 11. It is sought to be argued on behalf of Applicant Ganesh that he is the bonafide purchaser of the property and in order to ensure that he recovers the money, he executed agreement to sale in favour of the mediator i.e. Vitthal. Prima facie perusal of record does not support the said contention. It is practically not possible to accept that Applicant Ganesh got executed the document from husband of Rekha on 19.04.2026 and within short period of time, Rekha executes a document in his favour in the capacity of constituted power of attorney of original owner and he accepts the same. Moreover, inspite of knowledge of publication of notice by original owner creating doubt with regard to the power of attorney executed in favour of Rekha, Applicant Ganesh executes another agreement in favour of Vitthal and Manindarsingh. No prudent man is expected to do this once it is within his knowledge that there is every possibility of his own agreement being executed on the basis of false/fabricated power of attorney. 12. Applicants Vitthal and Manindarsingh’s claim of bonafide purchasers of subject lands fails in view of candid statement made by - 8 - aba1111.26.odt learned Counsel for Ganesh that he did not pay any consideration to them. 13. Pertinently, there is allegation in the First Information Report that Manindarsingh and Vitthal went to the spot and asserted their right in respect of the said property on the basis of agreement to sale executed by Ganesh. This fact clearly shows that this apparently is a case of collusion between Applicants in order to grab the property of the informant. Moreover, there are antecedents against Applicants Ganesh and Vitthal of committing similar offence. Having regard to said facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is sought by the prosecution. As a result of this, Applicants have failed to make out a case for protecting their liberty. Hence, all the applications stand dismissed. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb