1 35 ABA 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 734/2026 (Sajal S/o Ravi Jain Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Ritesh Badhe, Advocate applicants (in all applications) Mr. H. D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant/State. Mr. C.A. Babarekar, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 27/08/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 783/2026 registered with Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati City for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 335, 336(3), 336(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the mother of informant namely Sandhya Santosh Jain expired on 19/08/2025. The father of the informant has already expired and had a LIC policy in which the informant’s mother was the nominee and the premium towards it was paid by the informant. After the death of his mother, when the informant inquired with the LIC 2 35 ABA 2026 officer on 19/10/2025, he was surprised to know that the present applicant had submitted a false affidavit in the name of informant’s deceased mother purportedly in respect of the LIC Policy belonging to the present applicant Sajal and co-accused Ruchesh. Accordingly, the crime was registered against all four accused persons for allegedly preparing forged affidavit and forging the signature of deceased as the present applicant himself signed the same as witness. It is further alleged that the policy amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was transferred online from the mother's account which was being operated by Ruchesh and the present applicant, wherein they transferred the amount to Jinagam Medical’s account and further the present applicant transferred it to his personal account. Accordingly, the crime is registered against all four accused persons including the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is the property dispute between the informant and the applicant. Whereas, a huge amount was due towards the informant, as the medical expenditure incurred for the treatment of the father and mother - Sandhya when they were admitted in the hospital. All the medicines as well as 3 35 ABA 2026 hospitalization expenses was incurred by Sajal and Ruchesh. He further submits that the amount which was transferred by the informant online to the Jinagam Medical Store and the entire amount was towards the medical expenses incurred by the informant. Under such circumstances, he submits that no offence was committed by the applicant. Though it was attempted to bring on records that the stamp paper of Rs. 500/- was prepared by the applicant cannot be believed. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the month of January 2026, he has been served with the notice and accordingly, he appeared before the Investigating Officer. Since it is a family dispute between both parties, no custodial interrogation would be required considering the nature of allegations and therefore he prays for anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submit that it is Sajal Ravi Jain who has prepared forged stamp paper and it was submitted to the LIC office. Accordingly the amount was transferred in the account of the deceased Sandhya. Therefore, they submit that, major role was played by the present applicant in respect of forgery, 4 35 ABA 2026 thereafter the amount was transferred in the name of Jinagam Medical Store which is run by Ruchesh and Sajal. Both are managing the said medical store. They further submit that, considering the role of the applicant i.e. Sajal, he does not deserve to be granted bail and his custodial interrogation would be necessary. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. I have gone through the statement of notary as well as the doctor. The doctor who was shown to be a witness on the said affidavit has specifically stated that his name was misused and the signature appearing on the stamp paper is not done by him. The notary officer who has notarized the said document in his statement he states that it is the applicant who has purchased the said stamp paper and one lady, was brought before him, named as Sandhya by showing Aadhar Card of Sandhya, they have got the notarized document. Perusal of the extract of notary register shows that the signature was appearing against the name of Sandhya. This document was notarized on 24/08/2025, whereas Sandhya was died on 19/08/2025. Therefore, apparently, it is the present applicant who has prepared this stamp paper in the name of Sandhya. Therefore, this is 5 35 ABA 2026 nothing but a case of impersonation and forgery and a thorough investigation is necessary. The learened counsel for the applicant submits that notice was issued by the investigating officer and accordingly, he appeared before the investigatig officer and co-operated in the investigation. Even if this is the case, considering the important role of the applicant as he seems to be mastermind in commission of crime, I am of the considered opinion that so far as applicant Sajal is concerned, his custodial interrogation would be necessary and therefore the application is rejected. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 15:23:21