Rajaram Yashwant Naik v. State Of Maharashtra

911-aba-3180-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3180 OF 2025 Rajaram Y. Naik ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent.

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

Mr. Prashant Gurav for the Applicant.

Mr. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. PSI Akshay Sathe (IO) and PSI Nitin Kamble (Pairavi Officer), Amboli Police Station is present.

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

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

20.11.2025.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 941 of 2025 registered at Amboli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The allegations against the present applicant are that he got prepared a forged Agreement for Sale in respect of premises of which the first informant is a landlord and the applicant is a tenant. It is alleged that he also got prepared forged PAN card of the first informant and submitted the said documents to the TATA Power Electricity Department for the purpose of transfer of the electricity meter in his own name. It is alleged that the applicant has done so with an ulterior motive to grab the said premises. 4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2

911-aba-3180-25.doc and the learned APP for the respondent / State. 5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that false allegations are made against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant had paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of execution of leave and license agreement. It is submitted that the applicant had repaid the loan amount of the first informant and thus he executed the agreement of sale in his favour. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation. It is thus submitted that the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

6.

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that the first informant is not the owner of the premises in question and thus there arises no question of him executing Agreement for Sale in favour of the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has prepared forged documents with a view to grab the premises in question. 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. There appears to be substance in the submission of the learned APP. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the present applicant on anticipatory bail Hence, the Application is rejected. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2