MHNS010044962020
Order below Exh.1
in Cri. Bail Application No.1647/2020.
{Kalpesh Tanaji Kirave Vs. State}
This is an application under section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.
2.

Brief facts giving rise to this application can be narrated
as follows.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.
310/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 416, 463,
464, 465, 468, 470, 471, 120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik on accusation
that the applicant­accused and co­accused, in furtherance of their
common intention, prepared and executed false and forged
document i.e. sale deed on 07.11.2015 pretending that it is
executed by the informant Prakash Choudhari for Rs.16,00,000/­.
3.

The applicant contends that he has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is falsely implicated in
this case. His name is transpired from the co­accused. Nothing is to
be seized or recovered from him. There is no evidence against him.
He is ready to co­operate in further investigation.

His custodial
interrogation is not, at all, required. The applicant­accused has no
criminal antecedent. He is not beneficiary in this transaction. He is
having permanent place of abode and roots in the society, therefore,
possibility of fleeing from justice does not arise.

Therefore,
..2..

considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, he has prayed
for prearrest bail.
4.

In response to the show cause notice, the respondent
State filed its reply and denied all the adverse allegations made by
the applicant and reiterated the prosecution case. It is contended
that there is prima­facie sufficient material on record to show
involvement of applicant­accused in the commission of offence. The
applicant­accused has obtained the original document from the Sub
Registrar office. For that purpose, he has taken Rs.10,00,000/­ in
this transaction. If he is released on prearrest bail, there will be
hurdle in further investigation and there will be no finality to the
investigation.

On these lines, the respondent has prayed for
rejection of his application.
5.

Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the
learned A.P.P. I have also perused the investigation papers made
available by the Investigating Officer. Prima­facie, the investigation
papers shows that the allegations against the applicant­accused are
well founded and the applicant­accused is one of the beneficiary in
this transaction. The applicant­accused knows very well as to when,
where and how the documents were forged.

The scope of
investigation appears to be very wide. In order to carry out proper
investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be
necessary. If the applicant is released on prearrest bail, there will be
hurdle in further investigation. The investigation is at crucial stage.
Similar offences are pending against the applicant­accused.
Considering the nature and gravity of accusations and fact that the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the progress
Cri. Bail Application No.1647/2020.
..3..

of investigation, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not made
out the case for grant of prearrest bail. With this, I proceed to pass
the following order.
ORDER
Application stands rejected.
Seema
Chandrakant
Jadhav
03 December, 2020.
rd
Digitally signed by Seema
Chandrakant Jadhav
Date: 2020.12.03 16:58:27
+0530
( Smt. S.C. Jadhav )
Additional Sessions Judge­8,
Nashik.