907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2351 OF 2026 Vicky Manohar Ladge …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2992 OF 2026 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2351 OF 2026 Mohamed Nadeem Hidayatullah Khan …Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Vicky Manohar Ladge …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms. Shivani Kondekar a/w Vidya Doke & Siddhesh Galande, for the Applicant in ABA/2351/2026. Mr. Sharikh M. Khan a/w Bilal F. Shaikh, for the Complainant. Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. PSI Umesh Gutal, Taloja Police Station, Navi Mumbai, present. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 09 SEPTEMBER 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra and Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant/First Informant. Page 1 Arjun ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.09.10 22:39:47 +0530 907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC 2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.205 of 2026 registered with Taloja Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.2 of the Order dated 4th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel in Criminal Bail Application No.590 of 2026, which reads as under: “2. In nut shell, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant and his brother are the owners of the S.No. 81/44/46/49/A/3 bearing 30 gunthas. In the month of March 2026, the complainant had gone to Talathi Office, Taluka Panvel to obtain 7/12 extract of the said property, wherein he was shocked to know that the said property is transferred in the name of Vilas Bhagwan Patil and Vicky Manohar Ladge by showing Mohammad Jamal Sherbaj Hidaytulla and Mohammad Nadim Sherbaj Hidaytulla to be the owners of the said property and the said documents was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Panvel vide sale deed No.183/2026, dated 05.02.2026 in the presence of two witness viz. Ganesh Anant Shelke and Kailas Balu Vele, thus law was set into motion against the applicant by lodging report with the Taloja police station for the above mentioned offences.” Page 2 Arjun 907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC 4. It is the submission of Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, that the Applicant and the Co-Purchaser are business partners and they purchased land admeasuring 30R, bearing Survey No.81, Hissa No. 44/46/49/A/3, situated at Turbhe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, for a total consideration of Rs.1,35,00,000/-. She submits that the Applicant thereafter came to know that the persons who had sold the land had filed a complaint and, therefore, they stopped the payment and filed a complaint dated 6th May 2026 with the Senior Police Inspector, Taloja Police Station, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. She submits that the Applicant is not at all involved in the crime. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, states that the offence is very serious, as, instead of the original owners, fictitious persons represented themselves to be the owners and executed a registered Sale Deed. She submits that, out of the consideration of Rs.1,35,00,000/-, it transpired during investigation that not a single paisa has been paid by the present Applicant. She submits that the offence is very serious and, therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary. Page 3 Arjun 907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC 6. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the First Informant, submits that, in fact, the market price of the subject property is more than Rs.10 Crores. Mr. Mohammad Jaman Sherbaz Hidayatullah, Vendor No.1, is in jail since May 2025 and even till date he is in jail. He submits that said Vendor No.1 could not have executed the Sale Deed on 3rd May 2026. He submits that even the Suit has been instituted in the fictitious names of the original owners. A copy of the said Suit is annexed at Pages 87-94. It is submitted that the verification has been made by the alleged Plaintiff No.1-Mohammad Jaman Sherbaaz Hidayatulla, who is in jail since May 2025 till date. 7. Perusal of the record shows that a valuable property situated at Turbhe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring 30R, has been sold by a registered Sale Deed dated 3rd May 2026, by showing the Co-Accused, Mr. Mohammad Jaman Sherbaaz Hidayatulla and Mr. Mohammad Nadim Sherbaaz Hidayatullah, as the vendors. The Co-Accused impersonated the original owners. The Applicant is the purchaser along with one Vilas Bhagwan Patil. The registered Sale Deed records that the aggregate amount of Rs.1,35,00,000/- was paid in instalments from 12th March 2024 to Page 4 Arjun 907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC 28th April 2026. During the investigation, it transpired that nothing has been paid as consideration by the Applicant and that the details of cheque numbers and amounts were given merely to show payment. 8. It is significant to note that, although the Sale Deed is dated 3rd February 2026, cheques dated 1st April 2026 for Rs.37,00,000/- and 28th April 2026 for Rs.30,00,000/- were issued, which are subsequent to the date of the Sale Deed. The Sale Deed, which is stated to have been executed on 3rd February 2026, records that possession of the land has been handed over. 9. Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Anand v. State of T.N. 1, and more particularly on Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 thereof. However, the facts of the said case are totally different. In that case, the allegation was that a will was allegedly executed by the father of the Complainant on 12th September 1988, however, no such will had been executed. 10. This is a case where Vendor No.1, Mohammad Jaman 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 702 Page 5 Arjun 907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC Sherbaaz Hidayatulla, is admittedly in jail since May 2025 and the said person, who is in jail, has allegedly executed Sale Deed dated 3rd February 2026. 11. It is further significant to note that a Civil Suit has been filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, bearing S.C.S. No.189 of 2026, by the Co-Accused in the name of said Mohammad Jaman Sherbaaz Hidayatulla, who is in jail and is a co- owner. Allegedly verification has been made by the said Co-Owner on 15th April 2026, who is in jail since May 2025 till date. Thus, it is clear that the allegations are very serious. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra2, held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offences. It has been further observed that the Court should be very cautious while dealing with the applications for anticipatory bail as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489 Page 6 Arjun 907-ABA-2351-2026.DOC investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. The said observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case. 13. Ms. Kondekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant has also relied on the decision of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj 3, and more particularly on Paragraph Nos.25 and 26, wherein it has been held that “forgery” and “fraud” are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. However, the said decision has no application to the present case. 14. In any case, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 15. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed. 16. As the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed, nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 3 (2018) 7 SCC 581 Page 7 Arjun