Mahesh Mathuradas Ahuja vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court found that there appeared to be a dispute between the applicant and the complainant, with both parties having filed complaints against each other. The applicant had been on interim bail since November 3, 2021, and had cooperated with the investigation. The prosecution's request for custodial interrogation was primarily for the recovery of the original agreement. The applicant denied possession of the original agreement, claiming it was with the first informant. The Court held that bail could not be declined solely on the ground of non-recovery of the document, especially when the investigating agency had not been able to recover it despite interrogation. Furthermore, the agreement was notarized and attested by witnesses, and the question of its authenticity would need to be decided on merits. Therefore, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was not warranted in this case. The applicant was granted bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties, and directed to report to the Investigating Officer as and when required.

Facts

The applicant, Suresh Kishanchand Bharati, sought anticipatory bail in CR No. 383 of 2021, registered at Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, for offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by Mr. Mahesh Ahuja, a director of Ahuja SYNFAB Pvt. Ltd. and Bhavisha Project Pvt. Ltd. The complainant alleged that the applicant obtained a GST certificate for Bhavisha Fashion Trendz using a forged lease agreement dated 10/02/2021, which the complainant claimed was not signed by him or his employees. The applicant is also a director in the complainant's companies and had previously filed a complaint against the complainant. The applicant has been on interim bail since 03/11/2021 and has cooperated with the investigation. The prosecution sought custodial interrogation for the recovery of the original agreement, which the applicant claims is with the first informant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of forgery and use of a forged document for obtaining a GST certificate? Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that a dispute exists between him and the complainant, as evidenced by his prior complaint. He has been on interim bail since November 3, 2021, and has cooperated with the investigation. He denied possession of the original agreement, stating it is with the first informant. He further pointed out that the agreement is notarized and attested by witnesses, and the authenticity of the document should be decided on merits. Revenue/State: Sought custodial interrogation for the recovery of the original agreement, which they alleged was forged and used to obtain the GST certificate.