Vishal Rameshrao Salunke v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:19885 *1*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1097 OF 2025 VISHAL RAMESHRAO SALUNKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Shri Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate h/f Shri Dighe Praveen S., Advocate for the Applicant Shri A.V. Lavte, APP for the Respondents/State. ...
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 28 July 2025 P. C. :- 1.
Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
2.
The Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the Applicant apprehends arrest. The proceedings relate to Crime No.0390/2025. FIR is dated 09 April 2025 at 22:20 hours by the Shrirampur Police Station, District Ahilyanagar. Occurrence of the offence is shown on 07 April 2010 between 00:00 hours to 23:59 hours. The offences alleged are under Sections 34, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. There are four accused persons named in the FIR out of which, accused No.2 is
*2* the present Applicant before this Court. The Informant is one Dr.Sampat Kedare.
3.
As is revealed from the FIR, it is the prosecution's case that one Ravindra Pande fabricated the document and sold out plot of the Informant/ Complainant to one Balasaheb Netke. Thereafter, Balasaheb Netke sold out the said plot to one Suresh Bidve. It is alleged that the present Applicant being the Consultant Engineer helped to sanction the layout plan. As per the sanctioned layout plan, Plot No.19 was in the name of the Informant, but accused No.1 fabricated the document and showed the said plot in his name and sold out the same to one Netke. Accused Ravindra Pande has fabricated the Government documents and entered his name in the ownership column. It is alleged that layout was sanctioned on 15 September 1992. The said sanctioned plan was amended with the help of the Applicant and produced before the Collector wherein, it was shown that the said property is owned by Pande. On the basis of this, NA permission was obtained by Pande. In such circumstances, the report was lodged and the FIR came to be registered. 4.
I have heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant
*3* and the learned APP for the Respondents/ State. With their assistance, I have perused the FIR and the record available with the Court.
5.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicant by referring to the FIR that even if the role attributed to the present Applicant of preparing necessary layout plan of the disputed property as alleged in the FIR, is considered to be true, it is competent authority who has sanctioned the plan way back in the year 2005. Besides this, it appears that there is no specific role attributed to this Applicant in the FIR. The nature of allegations in the FIR qua this Applicant are general/ omnibus in nature. It also appears that the Informant has belatedly got up from deep-slumber and chosen to file the complaint in respect of the plan, which was already approved in the year 2005. This does not lend credence to the complaint itself as it is belated. It also appears that ingredients of alleged offences as noted in the FIR, are not attributed qua the present Applicant. The Applicant has no criminal antecedents. Even perusal of the FIR would show that he has performed his duty and there is no element of criminality, which can be attributed to this Applicant from the
*4* allegations made against him.
6.
Considering the factual conspectus in the present case as noted above, in my view, a prima facie case is made out by the Applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The Applicant has no criminal antecedent and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the given factual complexion. Therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:-
ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R. No.0390/2025 registered with Shrirampur Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer till the filing of the charge sheet. He is further directed to co-operate in the investigation.
(iii) The Applicant shall furnish details of residential address and other contact details such as the mobile number etc. to the concerned Police Station. If there is any change in the contact
*5* details, the same shall be immediately informed to the concerned Police Station.
(iv) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court, subject to further orders / until filing of the chargesheet. (v) The Applicant shall not contact and/or influence the witness/es and/or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
7.
The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed in the above terms. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose of adjudication of this application.
kps ( ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. )