MHNS010044972020
Order below Exh.1
in Cri. Bail Application No.1648/2020.
{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.
323/2020 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 20.12.2018 pretending that it is
executed by Bhaidas Ramdas Bharote for Rs.11,31,000/­ who is
already expired on 21.02.2004 and thereby committed an offence.
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,
..2..

possibility of fleeing from justice does not arise.

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

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,
Rs.50,000/­ has been paid to him 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. The investigation is at crucial stage. If the applicant is
released on prearrest bail, there will be hurdle in further
investigation.

Considering the nature and gravity of accusations
and fact that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary
Cri. Bail Application No.1648/2020.
..3..

for the progress 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
16:58:56 +0530
( Smt. S.C. Jadhav )
Additional Sessions Judge­8,
Nashik.