Nasim Rashid Khan And ORS v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1911 OF 2024 1.

Nasim Rashid Khan 2.

Zubair Rashid Khan 3.

Shabana Ahmed Shaha Sayyad SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI 4.

Raghurama Narayan Shetty ...Applicants

Versus

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2024.07.26 17:02:10 +0530 The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

***  Mr. Vaibhav Ugle a/w Mr. roshan Chavan and Mr. Vikas Somwanshi i/b Mr. Rajesh Katore, for the Applicant.

 Mr. Sandeep Waghmare, for proposed Intervenor  Ms. Megha Sumit Bajoria, APP for the Respondent.  Mr. Chetan More, Police Inspector, Koregaon Park Police Station. *** CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 26th July, 2024.

P. C. :

1.

Heard, Mr. Vaibhav Ugle, learned counsel for the applicants and M. Megha Bajoria, learned APP for the State.

2.

The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with First Information Report No.0079 of 2024 (FIR), dated 22nd May, 2024, registered at Police Station Koregaon Park, District Pune, for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3.

The informant in the present case is the Superintendent of the

office of the Charity Commissioner. The informant has stated that on a complaint lodged on 19th January, 2024 by one Tabassum Anwar Shaikh, who happens to be the daughter of applicant No.1, alleging that certain document purportedly originating from the office of the Charity Commissioner was forged and fabricated, an in house enquiry was conducted and it was found that the said document was indeed forged and fabricated. 4.

The said document happened to be a change report bearing No.2 of 2018, whereby the change in the management of a particular trust with whom the applicants are associated, was recorded upon the death of the husband of applicant No.1. The in house enquiry revealed that no such document was issued by the office of the Charity Commissioner. 5.

Investigation was carried out and statement of the then Superintendent of the Charity Commissioner's office indicates that the document upon which the applicants rely is found to be forged and fabricated, as the then Superintendent of the office of the Charity Commissioner denied having signed such a document or issued the same. In fact, the outward number stated in the said document pertains to some other Charitable Trust and it has no connection with the trust with which the applicants are concerned.

6.

Although, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that

there is a backdrop of the civil dispute between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that when the Superintendent of the office of the Charity Commissioner is the informant and the FIR has been registered on the basis of facts that have come to light in an in house enquiry conducted by the office of the Charity Commissioner, the offences in the present case assume serious proportion.

7.

The said forged and fabricated document was used to obtain signing authority for the applicants in various places, including bank accounts, thereby indicating the seriousness of the offence. 8.

Considering the investigation papers brought to the notice of this Court, no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail. 9.

The application is dismissed.

(MANISH PITALE, J.)