Vasudev Shamrao Sawake v. State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.06.19 19:22:39 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.287 of 2025 Vasudev S Sawake Age: 57, Occ: service Registrar officer, Shirgaon Group Gram-Panchayat Office, Shirgaon, Tal.Dist.Ratnagiri, Permanently residing at F-003, Mahalaxmi Royal Pushpendra City, Khedashi, Tal & Dist. Ratnagiri ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of CR No.0773/2024 registered with LT Marg Police Station, Mumbai, which is subsequently transferred to Crime Detection Branch (Division I), Commissioner of Police Compound at Mumbai and registered as CR No.75 of 2024) ... Respondent ---- Mr Rakesh Bhatkar for the applicant.

Mr Arfan Sait, APP for respondent/State.

HC 34430 Mane, DCB, CID Unit-01 Mumbai.

---- Coram: R.N.Laddha, J.

Date: 18 June 2025

P.C.:

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.773 of 2024, registered at LT Marg Police Station, and subsequently transferred to the Crime Detection Branch (Division I), Commissioner of Police Compound, Mumbai, and renumbered as CR No.75 of 2024. The applicant is accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 340(2), 339, 338, 337, 336(2), 319(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 3 and 6 of the Passport (India Entry) Act, 1950; Para 3(1) of the Foreigners Citizen Order, 1948; and Sections 13, 14(A) and (B) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 2 October 2024, a joint operation conducted by the Crime Detection Branch and the Crime Intelligence Squad led to the arrest of accused No.1, a Bangladesh national residing illegally in India. During the search, it was discovered that accused No.1, with the assistance of Alim Shaikh, had created forged and counterfeit documents, including a Voter ID, PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Ayushman Swastha Bharat Card, Universal Pass, Driving License, RC Book for a motor cycle, Debit Cards from Central Bank of India and Bank of Baroda, Janata Gymkhana member card, and a Ration

Card.

3.

The investigation further revealed that accused No.1 possessed two birth certificates in his name, one issued on 4 March 2020 by the Village Development Officer of Grampanchayat in Shirgaon, Ratnagiri, and another from the Government of West Bengal, Bongoan, North 24 Parganas. It came to light that on 4 February 2020, Imtiyaz Mujawar, a resident of Udyam Nagar, Ratnagiri, submitted an application to the Shirgaon Grampanchat requesting a birth certificate for accused No.1, claiming they were acquainted. Based on this application, a resolution was passed by the Gram Sabha on 4 February 2024. Subsequently, during the Panchayat's monthly meeting held on 8 February 2024, it was decided to issue the birth certificate to accused No.1 without any documentary evidence of his date of birth. The investigation revealed that both accused No.

1 and Imtiyaz had provided false information and had never resided at the address mentioned in the application, either before or after 1 May 1983. At the relevant time, the applicant held the position of Village Development Officer in the said Grampanchayat and misused his official position by issuing a forged birth certificate. 4.

Mr Rakesh Bhatkar, the learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the applicant, asserts the applicant's innocence and submits that the application for issuing the birth certificate of accused No.1 was made with a recommendation from former Gram Panchayat member, Imtiyaz Mujawar, who confirmed that accused No.1 was a resident of Shirgaon. Relying on this endorsement, the applicant issued the birth certificate in good faith, duly discharging his responsibilities under the applicable statutory provisions.

5.

The learned Counsel further argues that if any entry is alleged to be fraudulent, the appropriate legal process for its cancellation can be initiated; however, the prosecution has not undertaken this action. He highlights that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Given that the prosecution's case is based entirely on documentary evidence already in its possession, the applicant's continued custody is unwarranted. The applicant is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions the Court may impose if granted bail. 6.

On the other hand, Mr Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, vehemently opposes the applicant's plea for the grant of prearrest bail. He submits that the applicant, in his official capacity

as the Village Development Officer of Shirgaon Grampanchayat, was instrumental in the issuance of a birth certificate dated 4 March 2020 in favour of accused No.1, reflecting his date of birth as 1 May 1983. During the course of the investigation, it has come to light that a concerned clerk within the Grampanchayat office had raised objections to the issuance of the said birth certificate, pointing out that accused No.1's name did not appear in the official birth records. Another clerk echoed similar concerns, asserting that accused No.1 was not born on the stated date and that no valid records substantiated such a claim.

Despite these explicit objections, the applicant, acting in collusion with one Imtiyaz- a former member of the Grampanchayat-proceeded to misrepresent facts and facilitated the generation of the birth certificate based on fabricated details. Furthermore, the applicant, in his supervisory role, exerted undue pressure on the clerk, compelling him to prepare the forged certificate with assurance that he would sign it and assume responsibility for its issuance. Mr Sait further asserts that accused No.1 had unlawfully entered the territory of India in the year 1999 and has since remained in the country without legal authorisation, using falsified documentation to fabricate proof of citizenship and residency status.

statutory procedures and legal framework governing the issuance of birth certificates, particularly under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, wilfully bypassed the prescribed norms. He points out that the issuance of birth certificates does not require deliberation during Gram Sabha meetings or monthly sessions. Yet, discrepancies have been noted in the Minutes of such meetings, indicating an attempt to create a false narrative of procedural compliance. Mr Sait draws the Court's attention to these inconsistencies as further evidence of manipulation and non-compliance with statutory provisions.

7.

In light of these allegations, the learned APP submits that there are serious concerns regarding the existence of an organised racket aimed at facilitating illegal immigration through the fabrication of official government documents such as birth certificates. The investigation is at a nascent stage. Given the gravity of the offence, which poses significant threats to national security, public safety and the integrity of administrative institutions, Mr Sait strongly contends that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative. Such custody, he argues, is essential to unearth the larger conspiracy, trace the involvement of other potential offenders, and preserve

the integrity of the investigation by preventing the destruction or tampering of critical evidence.

8.

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the records.

9.

It is a settled position in law that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. While it has been acknowledged in many instances that regular bail is considered a general rule, the same analogy cannot be applied to anticipatory bail. The decision to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised with careful and prudent discretion by the Court, considering the specific circumstances of each case. A straitjacket formula cannot be applied. While exercising this power, the Court must exercise caution, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice or hinder the investigation by allowing tampering or destruction of evidence. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Anr1. 10.

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the applicant held the post of Village Development Officer with the Shirgaon

1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282

Grampanchayat at the relevant time. It is alleged that, in the course of discharging his official duties, the applicant facilitated the issuance of a birth certificate in favour of accused No.1, who is purported to be a Bangladesh national and not lawfully entitled to such documentation under the Indian law. 11.

There is material available on record to suggest that the applicant was fully aware of the fraudulent nature of the application submitted by accused No.1 for obtaining a birth certificate. Despite this knowledge, he deliberately misused his official position and authority to facilitate the issuance of a false and forged birth certificate to accused No.1. This conduct constitutes a serious abuse of public office and poses significant threats to the integrity of the nation's immigration and civil documentation systems.

12.

The statements recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, from two junior officials employed with the Shirgaon Gram-Panchyat suggest that applicant exerted undue influence to include a discussion concerning accused No.1's application for the said certificate in the official Minutes of Gramsabha meetings. The record further indicates that the applicant coerced one of the clerks into preparing a fabricated birth certificate and subsequently caused

its unlawful delivery. In light of the available material on record, there is substantial prima facie evidence to implicate the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, there is a strong likelihood that multiple birth certificates with similar or identical details may have been issued. The nature of the offence is serious and affects national security, especially as it appears to aid and abate the illegal infiltration and documentation of a foreign national. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the ongoing investigation, it is essential that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy and identify other individuals involved. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously hinder the investigation and may result in the destruction or tampering of crucial evidence. As such, the present case does not merit the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant. As a result, the application stands rejected.

[R. N. Laddha, J.]