IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 933 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1480 OF 2026 LATIFUDDIN ISMAIL UDDIN SHAIKH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. Vinod I. Thole, Advocate for Applicant Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 252/2026, registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) r/w 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 82-C of the Indian Registration Act. 2. The First Information Report lodged by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, indicates that a complaint was made to the said office by Smt. Malati Khanapurkar regarding the alleged forging of her signature on the power of attorney executed in respect of City Survey No. 20663/1/A/10, Plot No. 32, Kotwalapura, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the said power of attorney, a sale deed 933 ABA 1480.2026.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:39988 came to be executed and the present applicant is the purchaser of the said property. Thus, the allegation is that the present applicant is a party to the crime in question and has been a beneficiary thereof. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that, in the present case, the applicant is the purchaser of the property and, believing the registered power of attorney to be genuine, entered into the transaction. According to him, before executing the sale deed in respect of the said property, a notice was published in the newspaper and no objection was raised by anyone, and as such, the sale deed came to be executed. It is his submission that the applicant paid the consideration amount both in cash and by cheque, which shows that the transaction entered into by the applicant was genuine. It is his submission that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and, since the entire evidence is documentary in nature, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. He further submits that, if directed, he will cooperate with the investigation. 4. The learned APP opposed the grant of any protection to the applicant by referring to the allegations against the applicant in the First Information Report. She pointed out that there is evidence to show that the power of attorney of Smt. Khanapurkar is a fabricated document, which could be ascertained from the bogus Aadhaar Card used for the purpose of executing 933 ABA 1480.2026.odt 2 of 4 the said document. It is submitted that the applicant is a beneficiary of the crime in question. Though it is accepted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, prosecution claims that there is syndicate which appropriate properties of people and the possibility of applicant being part of such syndicate along with accused No.1 is required to be investigated. 5. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is sufficient material to show that the power of attorney allegedly executed by Smt. Khanapurkar is a fabricated document. No doubt, before getting the sale deed executed, the applicant had published a notice to that effect; however, perusal of the power of attorney clearly indicates that the constituted attorney had no authority under the said power of attorney to receive any consideration. 6. A specific query was made to the learned Advocate for the applicant as to whether the consideration was paid to the original owner. The learned Advocate for the applicant, in response to the said query, submitted that it could be a mistake on the part of the applicant to have paid the consideration to the constituted attorney and not to the original owner. 7. This Court cannot ignore the fact that apparently the offence has been committed in systematic manner and involvement of other accused is apparent. If the applicant has relied upon the power of attorney in order to seek 933 ABA 1480.2026.odt 3 of 4 execution of the sale deed in his favour, he cannot now be permitted to contend that it was a mistake on his part to pay the consideration to the constituted attorney and not to the original owner. This Court also takes note of the fact that any prudent person, upon coming to know that the sale deed executed in his favour was based on a bogus power of attorney, would not seek to justify the said sale deed, which was sought to be executed by the applicant. Needless to say, having regard to the manner in which crime has been committed, in order to ascertain the conspiracy as well as the connection between the applicant and the co-accused, his custodial interrogation is necessary. 8. Hence, the application stands rejected. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 933 ABA 1480.2026.odt 4 of 4