Krushnat Mahadev Aarde v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3445 OF 2025 Amol Ramdas Konde ..Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3498 OF 2025 Krushnat Mahadev Aarde ..Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Mr. Aadesh Konde-Deshmukh, for the Applicant in both applications.

Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP in ABA No. 3445/2025 Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP in ABA No. 3498/2025.

Mr. Ganesh Dixit - P.S.I., Alankar Police Station is present.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

8th JANUARY 2026 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

These are the second applications for pre-arrest bail. by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.01.08 19:03:20 +0530 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI 3.

The applicants are arraigned in C.R. No. 124/2022 registered with Alankar Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code') and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 ('the Registration Act, 1/4

1908'). The gravamen of the indictment against the applicants and co-accused was that, the accused had forged NA permission purportedly granted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune. 4.

The first application for pre-arrest bail, which was jointly filed by the applicants, being Anticipatory Bail Application No. 589/2023, was rejected by this Court by an order dated 21st August, 2023.

5.

The applicants have preferred these second applications for bail, as in the intervening period, the Investigating Agency has completed the investigation and lodged the charge-sheet, with the assertions that, the investigation revealed that, the forgery of NA Order was allegedly committed by the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and the applicants had no role in the alleged forgery of the NA order. The Investigating Agency has arraigned the applicants primarily for the offence punishable under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6.

On perusal of the charge-sheet, it becomes evident that, the Investigating Officer has recorded a categorical opinion that, the investigation did not reveal the complicity of the applicants in the alleged forgery of the NA Order and the role of the applicants is restricted to using the allegedly forged order while 2/4

registering the instrument, and, thus, they are sought to be arraigned under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908. 7.

The learned APP, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, submits that, post the rejection of first application for pre-arrest bail, during the course of investigation, notices under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were issued to the applicants and they have co-operated with the investigation, and, thus, the Investigating Officer did not consider it necessary to arrest the applicants.

8.

In view of the aforesaid developments, at this juncture, the arrest of the applicants does not seem necessary to facilitate further investigation. In fact, the investigation has, prima facie, ruled out the complicity of the applicants in the forgery of alleged order.

9.

In these circumstances, since the investigation is complete for all intent and purpose and the applicants appear to have roots in the society, this Court is inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants.

10.

Hence, the following order:- 3/4

: : O R D E R : :

a) The applications stand allowed.

b) In the event of the arrest of the applicants - Amol Ramdas Konde and Krushnat Mahadev Aarde, in connection with the C.R. No. 124/2022, registered with Alankar Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one or two sureties in the like amount.

c) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant or any of the prosecution witnesses or any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

e) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

f) The applications stand disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4