Bombay High Court
Vaibhav Vasantrao Pardhe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 14 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1573
1 933-BA-2029-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2029 OF 2025
SANDIPAN KISAN TUPARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade
APP for Respondents : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
...
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1844 OF 2025
VAIBHAV VASANTRAO PARDHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S. R. Andhale
APP for Respondents : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 14-01-2026
PER COURT:-
1. The applicants seek regular bail in connection with Crime
No.0035 of 2025 dated 16.01.2025 registered with Police Station
Shrigonda, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences under Sections
406, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 423, 120B of the Indian Penal
Code. In the above crime, applicant Sandipan is arrested on
03.04.2025 and applicant Vaibhav is arrested on 31.01.2025.
2 933-BA-2029-25.odt
2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant currently
serves as the President of the Conference of Churches of Christ in
Western India (institution), a position held since 22.12.2024. The
informant became aware that a parcel of the institution's land
located in Shrigonda had been sold without proper authorization or
knowledge. Verification through the relevant sale deed confirmed
the fraudulent nature of the transaction. It was discovered that on
12.09.2023, one Deepak Gaikwad, identified as a Moderator,
allegedly submitted an application to transfer the institution's land
to the applicant using a bogus sale deed and fraudulent supporting
documents.
3. Further, an individual, Satish Danial, along with applicant
Vaibhav, falsely represented himself as an authentic employee of
the institution, is accused of illegally participating in the transfer
proceedings. Satish allegedly collaborated with revenue officials to
assist the applicant and other co-accused parties. Critically, it is
alleged that no formal hearing was conducted before the Tahsildar,
and due procedure was not followed, resulting in the illegal
transfer of institutional in favour of the applicant Sandipan's name.
Consequently, lodged the first information report.
4. Mr. S. E. Shekade, learned counsel for the applicant -
Sandipan the applicant, Sandipan, has been falsely implicated in
this crime. In fact, the applicant is a victim of circumstances who
3 933-BA-2029-25.odt
was deceived for a substantial sum of money. The FIR is
fabricated, based merely on suspicion, and appears designed to
convert a civil liability into a criminal matter. The applicant had no
role in the alleged fraud, has been made a scapegoat, and has
suffered significant financial loss and mental agony.
5. It is further submitted that because government authorities
verified the land transfer while it was being registered in the
institution's name, the applicant had no reason to question the
genuineness of the property title or suspect any fraud. The
sequence of events the civil case (Special Civil Case No. 49 of
2024) being filed on 26.11.2024, and the present FIR lodged later
on 16.01.2025 suggests the informant used the criminal complaint
to pressure the applicant and co-accused.
6. Mr. S. R. Andhale, learned counsel for the applicant, Vaibhav,
submits that a prima facie case is not made out, against the
applicant. He has been falsely and maliciously implicated due to
political rivalry over the organization's Secretary position. There is
no cogent evidence of his involvement in the alleged fraud or
document forgery; the chargesheet is silent on these aspects. The
pending civil dispute, evidenced by the civil suit filed on
26.11.2024 and subsequently, the FIR has been given a criminal
colour purely to harass the applicant. Except issuing paper
publication, ensuring that the land of the trust is subjected to any
4 933-BA-2029-25.odt
transfer, there is no material on record as against the applicant -
Vaibhav. The applicant being in custody since 31.01.2025. Hence,
prayed to allow the applications.
7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the applications and submitted
that applicant Sandipan has committed forgery and fabricated
false documents. The applicants have active role in the alleged
criminal conspiracy. Considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, the applicants may not be enlarged on bail. Hence,
prayed to reject the applications.
8. Having heard the respective counsel from both the sides
and upon perusal of the material on record, including the charge
sheet indicates that the applicant Vaibhav along with co-accused
Satish had allegedly made a false representation before the
Divisional Officer while transferring the land of the society.
9. The record further indicates that except the association with
co-accused Satish, no other role is attributed to the applicant
Vaibhav. Moreover, co-accused Satish is released on anticipatory
bail by the Sessions Court, Shrigonda. Since, applicant Vaibhav is
situated on similar footing as that of Satish coupled with the fact
that no other incriminating material is discovered against him, is
consequently entitled for parity.
10. Equally, the statement of the witness, Advocate Raman
5 933-BA-2029-25.odt
Sharma indicates that applicant Sandipan had initially approached
the Advocate expressing his interest to purchase the property in
dispute. At that time, the Advocate had suggested Sandipan that
since the property is in the name of Conference of Churches of
Christ in Western India, could not be transferred to him.
Subsequently, in November 2024, the applicant re-approached the
Advocate in relation to the same property. However, this time the
property was in the name of the Moderator of the Indian Canadian
Presbyterian Mission, represented by co-accused Dipak Gaikwad.
Accordingly, all the requisite documents and witnesses were
provided by Sandipan and Dipak, on the basis of which disputed
sale was effected.
11. Therefore, there is, prima facie, complicity of the applicant
Satish in the alleged crime. The relation with co-accused Dipak
and the manner in which the disputed sale is carried out,
sufficiently establishes the involvement of applicant Sandipan.
12. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the conduct of the
applicant Sandipan, prima facie, indicates that he was conscious
about the title of the property and has intentionally tried to
circumvent the due procedure to receive financial benefits. Prima
facie, applicant Sandipan, along with the co-accused, shared a
common intent and played an active role in the alleged crime.
6 933-BA-2029-25.odt
13. Moreover, the perusal of the alleged sale deed executed by
the applicant indicates that only initial amount of Rs.3 Lakh is paid
by the applicant as against the total consideration of Rs.1 Crore 38
Lakhs, ensuring execution of registered sale deed for his personal
gain and, subsequently, causing loss to the trust. As such, has
acted in connivance to co-accused deceptively.
14. Considering the gravity and the serious nature of the
offence, the request of the applicant Sandipan, to be enlarged on
bail, does not warrant any consideration; therefore, application of
applicant Sandipan deserves to be rejected.
15. Hence, the following order;
ORDER
(i) Bail Application No.2029 of 2025 is rejected.
(ii) Bail Application No.1844 of 2025 is allowed.
(iii) Applicant, Vaibhav Vasantrao Pardhe, be released on bail, upon furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand), with one or two local solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with Crime No.0035 of 2025 dated 16.01.2025 registered with Police Station Shrigonda, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 423, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, on the following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution 7 933-BA-2029-25.odt witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.
(b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court and shall not leave the area of jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station till conclusion of the trial.
(c) The applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone numbers of two of the near relatives.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(iv) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE rrd