Mumbai, January 16, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Judge Shri A.A. Kulkarni (C.R. No. 22) rejected the anticipatory bail application of Praveen Ramesh Vibhandik in connection with a significant land fraud case registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station (Crime No. 750/2023). The case involves allegations of forgery, cheating, and trespassing related to a disputed plot in Chembur.

Vibhandik was implicated in the case, which also involves his brother Rajan Gulhane, for offenses punishable under sections 420 (cheating), 447 (criminal trespass), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code.¹

Allegations and Arguments:

According to the prosecution, the case originated from a complaint filed by Police Head Constable Aananda Maruti Patil. The complaint alleged that Rajan Gulhane had filed an application claiming ownership of a plot of land at Chembur Survey No. 320, CTS No. 623(B)/1 to 7, and CTS No. 661, where the ACP Deonar’s office is located, and had even erected a board claiming ownership.

The investigation revealed that Gulhane had allegedly forged documents to claim ownership of the disputed land, which is subject to a dispute between the Government of Maharashtra and the Government of India (Soult department). The prosecution further alleged that Praveen Vibhandik and other accused had received substantial amounts of money based on these forged documents.

Advocate A.M. Purohit, representing Vibhandik, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged forgery or financial transactions. He contended that Vibhandik was arrested solely because his brother was an accused and that no recoveries were due from him.

However, APP J.N. Suryawanshi, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail application, citing the possibility of Vibhandik tampering with evidence and the ongoing investigation. The prosecution argued that initial investigations revealed Vibhandik had received money related to the fraud and that further recoveries, including Rs. 30 lakhs, were pending. They also highlighted the arrest of another accused, Pravin Bibhandik, who allegedly admitted to receiving Rs. 75 lakhs in connection with the fraud.

Court’s Decision:

After reviewing the submissions and documents, Judge Kulkarni found that there was prima facie evidence of forgery and financial misappropriation. The court noted the allegations that Vibhandik and other accused had received money based on forged documents and that the investigation was still in its preliminary stages.

“For the purpose of entire investigation presence of applicant may be required in future also as investigation is in preliminary stage,” Judge Kulkarni stated in his oral order. “Prima facie there are documents about forgery as well as receipt of amount by applicant and other accused on the basis of forged documents.”

The court concluded that, under the circumstances, Vibhandik was not entitled to bail at this stage and rejected his application.

Implications:

The denial of bail underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the court’s determination to allow the police to continue their investigation without interference. The case highlights the complexities of land disputes and the potential for large-scale fraud involving forged documents.

The order was dictated on January 15, 2024, and signed on January 16, 2024. It was uploaded on the same day at 5:30 p.m.