Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J.

Shyamsundar Radhyesham Agarwal – Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through the Government Pleader’s Office, PWD Building, High Court, Bombay – Respondents
Anticipatory Bail Application No.2633 of 2025 With Interim Application No. 3650 of 2025
Decided On : 25-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pavan Patil, Mr. Prithviraj Gole, Mr. Soham Badole, and Mr. Siddhesh Pednekar.
For the Respondent-State: Mrs. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP
For the Intervener/Applicant in IA. : Mr. Aabad Ponda with Mr. Karan Jain i/by Mr. Faizal Shaikh.

Anticipatory bail applications must balance personal liberty with the integrity of investigations, especially where significant delays in filing FIR raise doubts regarding the genuineness of claims.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 - Anticipatory Bail - Applicant seeks pre-arrest protection concerning alleged fraudulent transactions related to ancestral land - Allegations include forgery of documents and conspiracy with co-accused - Law recognizes personal liberty as a cherished right, with emphasis on ensuring justice and fairness in investigations. (Paras 1, 30, 31, 56)

(B) Delay in Filing FIR - Significant delay of 12 to 15 years raises questions concerning the genuineness of the complaint and the applicant’s liberty - Transactions were part of public record for years, suggesting the complaint may be a reaction arising from civil disputes. (Paras 38, 40, 44)

(C) Balance of Interests - The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining a balance between personal liberty and the integrity of the investigation, permitting anticipatory bail under strict conditions. (Paras 70, 71)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The applicant, who is arrayed as accused No. 3, has moved this application seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The relief is sought in connection with Crime Register No. 559 of 2025 registered at Thane Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR is lodged by one Balwant Kashinath Patil.

2. The complainant filed a report under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita against the present applicant. His case is that his family depends on cultivation of ancestral land situated at Mouje Navghar, Bhayandar, Thane. The land bears old Survey No. 280 and new Survey No. 91. It admeasures 18,490 square meters and was recorded in 1948 as protected tenancy of his great-grandfather, Vitthal Shinwar Patil.

3. The complainant narrates that Vitthal left behind five heirs. They were Ganeswar Vitthal Patil, Krishnabai Kashinath Patil, Mathurabai Jayaram Gharat, Bhagyabai Mukund Gawde and Bayabai Kakaji Bhoir. Their names were entered as protected tenants after Vitthal’s demise. Upon their deaths, the names of their heirs were mutated. It is alleged that several heirs executed a Power of Attorney dated 10 September 2003 in favour of Harshad Dinanath Gawde and Dinanath Sadashiv Gawde. The document was not registered. It is alleged to have authorized the attorneys to sell the land, decide the price, manage revenue affairs and obtain necessary permissions with the consent of heirs who were unable to regularly visit government offices.

4. The complainant states that the understanding among the heirs was clear. Any sale proceeds were to be shared by all heirs. Any final document was to bear signatures of all heirs. His mother, Smt. Krishnabai Kashinath Patil, passed away on 1 October 2021.

5. The complainant states that when he checked the 7/12 extract of new Survey No. 91 on the online portal to enter his name as heir of Krishnabai, he found the names of Shubham Murlidhar Agrawal and Sharad Murlidhar Agrawal. He asserts that no sale was ever carried out by the family. No heir received any consideration. He approached the District Collector, Thane, and obtained documents including a permission letter dated 10 September 2011 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He also obtained pleadings from Special Civil Suit No. 481 of 2011. He alleges that the compromise in that suit was recorded without signatures of any heirs and without service of summons.

6. The complainant further states that under the Right to Information Act, he secured a copy of a Deed of Conveyance dated 14 November 2008. The document shows TNN No. 4 and Doc. No. 9727 of 2008. He alleges that the applicant falsely represented himself as Power of Attorney holder and sold the property to his nephews, Shubham and Sharad Agrawal, for Rs. 80 lakhs. He alleges erasures on page 10 of the document. He alleges that the 7/12 extract was replaced with one pertaining to Godev village. The entry under Section 43 relating to tenant rights was removed. He alleges that the name of the Attorney was altered by substituting the name of Shamsundar Agrawal in place of Dinanath Sadashiv Gawde. He states that the interior pages still mentioned the original Power of Attorney holders. He also alleges that the Sub-Registrar wrongly attached Godev’s 8/12.

7. The complainant refers to a confirming document dated 15 September 2011 bearing Doc. No. 7281 of 2011. It was executed by Dinanath and Harshad Gawde in favour of Shubham and Sharad Agrawal. It purports to confirm the 2008 deed without any consideration. He alleges that Mutation Entry No. 1282 was wrongly altered to show that payment was made to the Power of Attorney holders. He alleges that the confirming parties acted beyond the authority granted under the 2003 Power of Attorney. He states that only the heirs of deceased Dhaneshwar Vitthal Patil could have confirmed the transaction. This wa