Bombay High Court
Ramesh Gulab Khandebharad vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
:1: 5-8-aba-12-17-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.12 OF 2024
Mangesh Nivrutti Hole .....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
......
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2024
Ramesh Gulab Khandebharad .....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
-----
Mr. Karansingh Rajput, Advocate a/w. Fauzan shaikh for the
Applicant in ABA/17/2024.
Mr. Rohan Hogle, Advocate for the Applicant in
ABA/12/2024.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for the Respondent-State
in ABA/12/2024.
Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State in
ABA/17/2024.
1 of 6
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2024 15:40:06 :::
:2: 5-8-aba-12-17-2024.odt
Mr. Arjun B. Kadam, Advocate a/w. Sudhanva S. Bedekar,
Advocate for the Intervener/Informant.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 08th JANUARY, 2024
P.C. :
1. In both these applications, a common order is
passed today because they arise out of the same FIR.
2. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.687/2023 registered with Khed
Police Station, District-Pune on 30.8.2023 under Sections
420, 431, 447, 464, 465, 468, 467, 471 read with 34 of IPC.
3. Heard Shri Karansingh Rajput, learned counsel
for the Applicant in ABA/17/2024, Shri Rohan Hogle,
learned counsel for the Applicant in ABA/12/2024, Ms.
Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned APP for the Respondent-
State in ABA/12/2024, Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, learned APP
for the Respondent-State in ABA/17/2024 and Shri Arjun
Kadam, learned counsel for the Intervener/Informant.
2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2024 15:40:06 :::
:3: 5-8-aba-12-17-2024.odt
4. Learned counsel for the first informant appears
and states that he has instructions to appear for the first
informant. Considering the nature of the dispute and
considering that the exact boundary of the plots owned by
both the parties is the central issue, learned counsel for the
Applicants are directed to add the first informant as a party
Respondent in both these Applications. Amendment shall be
carried out forthwith.
5. The gist of the FIR is that the informant's family
was owning a land at village Holewadi, Taluka-Khed,
District-Pune. For the sake of convenience, the survey
numbers are mentioned as 'old Survey Numbers'. It is the
case of the informant that his joint family owns the land as
old Survey Nos.1899 & 1900. The dispute is about the exact
location of the old Survey No.1985. There are certain maps
where the said land at old Survey No.1985 is shown at a
distant place from the land at old Survey No.1898. The
accused purchased the land at old Survey No.1898 and 1985
from one Atul Bhide on 1.8.2009. It is the case of the first
3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2024 15:40:06 :::
:4: 5-8-aba-12-17-2024.odt
informant that the accused Gorakh and Ramesh in collusion
with each other and in collusion with the other accused
including the Applicant Mangesh, created a false record
showing that the land at old Survey No.1985 was abutting
the land old Survey No.1898. Plotting was done on the
consolidated land. The accused encroached upon the
informant's family's lands. This caused loss not only to the
first informant's joint family owners but to the Government
as well. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the old record since prior to 1947 shows that the old Survey
No.1985 and 1898 were adjacent to each other. Only in the
year 1976 when the fresh measurement was carried out
when then new survey numbers were given, there are some
mistakes and those two plots were shown at distant places.
This has occurred because of the re-numbering of the plots.
He submitted that there is nothing wrong with the plotting
and sale of those plots to different people.
7. Learned counsel for the intervener-first
4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2024 15:40:06 :::
:5: 5-8-aba-12-17-2024.odt
informant submitted that the accused Gorakh and Ramesh
have encroached on their land which they are mentioning as
the land with old Survey No.1985. They have misused the
fresh record and a few maps prepared subsequently. Thus,
they have caused heavy losses to the first informant's family.
However, he conceded that till today no Civil Suit is filed to
seek remedy of injunction and declaration.
8. Learned APP, on instructions, submitted that the
investigating agency is in the process of visiting the spot,
preparing the fresh maps and recording statements of the
revenue authorities. She is seeking time.
9. Considering these submissions, today I am
adjourning the matters. However, till the next date, the
Applicants can be protected by way of ad-interim relief.
10. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.687/2023 registered with Khed Police Station, 5 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2024 15:40:06 ::: :6: 5-8-aba-12-17-2024.odt District-Pune, till the next date, the Applicants be released on bail on their executing P.R. bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.
(ii) This order shall operate till 20.2.2024.
(iii) The informant is at liberty to file affidavit-in-reply.
Learned APP shall also filed affidavit-in-reply.
(iv) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on 22.1.2024, 23.1.2024 and 24.1.2024 between 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called. The Applicants shall cooperate with the investigation.
(v) Stand over to 20.2.2024.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
6 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2024 15:40:06 :::