Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 626 OF 2025 Sarfaraz Mohamad Shaikh ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent.

..............

Adv. Shadab Khopekar a/w. Adv. Yash Sharma for the Applicant. Mr. V.N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent/State. API Satish Chaugale (IO) and PSI Nitin Kamble, Amboli Police Station is present.

..............

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

17.01.2026.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.82 of 2019 registered at Amboli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467 & 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) .

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant, along with other co-accused, who were Partners in Partnership Firm namely M/s. Dream Come True, falsely represented to the first informant and other victims that they are the owners of the land bearing Gat Nos. 37 and 39 ad-measuring about 2.78 1/3

hectares at Palghar. Whereas, in fact, the said land was owned by Anusaya Bhaskar Tambadi, Saku Anusaya and Pandu Ganeshkar. It is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused, on the basis of forged 7/12 extracts, had induced the first informant and other victims to purchase the said land and defrauded them to the tune of Rs. 13,96,000/-.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State. 5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the main allegations are against the co-accused Vijay Tolani. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has already filed the chargesheet against the other co-accused. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

6.

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that the applicant is absconding since the date of registration of the crime. It is further submitted that the stamp papers for preparing the agreements were purchased by the present applicant. Learned APP submits that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7.

I have perused the papers of investigation. Prima facie, it appears that the present applicant and other co-accused have 2/3

defrauded the first informant and other victims on the basis of forged 7/12 extract. It appears that the applicant is absconding since the date of registration of the crime. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Application is rejected.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] 3/3