[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Afsana Bano Mansuri And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:5837
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 13_BA_2869_2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2869 OF 2025
Peet Mohammed Shaikh ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4043 OF 2025
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2869 OF 2025
Afsana Bano Mansuri and Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Tariq Khan, for the Applicant.
None for the Applicant in Interim Application No.4043/2025.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for the Respondent - State.
API - Gokul D. Bhoi, Khar Police Station, Mumbai, present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 04TH FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his
enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 53 of 2025
dated 21st January, 2025 registered with the Khar Police
Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),
318(4), 351(3), 3(5) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(for short 'BNS').
Page 1 of 7
th
4 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2026 20:52:37 :::
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 13_BA_2869_2025.doc
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the First
Informant (now deceased) represented to the Applicant that
he was the owner of piece and parcel of land situated at Khar.
He induced the present Applicant to accept the development
rights in the said land and proposed that they should enter
into a partnership with 30% of profit and loss to the present
Applicant and rest to the First Informant. Accordingly, an
agreement was executed by and between the parties to
develop the said land. It is the case of the prosecution that the
Applicant has caused construction on the said land, however,
later it transpired that the First Informant had misrepresented
himself regarding the ownership and title of the said land
being with him and forged documents to induce the present
Applicant to collaborate with him in constructing the said
building. It is also alleged that the present Applicant and the
First Informant had induced various other purchasers to part
with their money and allotted them flats in the building
constructed by the Applicant. Since it now transpired that the
First Informant was not the owner of the land and entire
Page 2 of 7
th
4 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2026 20:52:37 :::
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 13_BA_2869_2025.doc
construction was illegal, the corporation has demolished the
entire construction in the said land and have taken possession
of the land. The First Informant erroneously and falsely
implicated the Applicant in the present FIR. The Applicant
was arrested on 17th February, 2025 pursuant to registration of
the FIR.
3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail
before the Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay, however, by order dated 27 th June, 2025, the
said application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant has filed
the present Bail Application for the reliefs as prayed.
4. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant himself was cheated by the First
Informant. In fact, according to Mr. Khan, the Applicant
herein has caused entire construction of the building with the
money, which he received from all the purchasers. Ultimately,
on account of forging in title document of the said land as
Page 3 of 7
th
4 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2026 20:52:37 :::
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 13_BA_2869_2025.doc
committed by the First Informant, the corporation demolished
the said building constructed on the said land. In these
circumstances, Mr. Khan prays that the Applicant is falsely
implicated in the alleged offence and it is the First Informant
who should have been made an accused. He thus prays that
the Applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Ms. Rao, learned APP, although contests the Bail
Application, has fairly conceded that the facts as narrated by
the counsel for the Applicant are more or less correct. She,
however, submits that the present Applicant and the deceased-
First Informant have in fact effected cheating the flat
purchasers. She, however, submits that charges have not been
framed and the prosecution intends to examine 48 witnesses.
6. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that the trial
will conclude in the near foreseeable future.
7. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to enlarge
the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:-
Page 4 of 7
th
4 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2026 20:52:37 :::
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 13_BA_2869_2025.doc
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
iii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police
Station concerned once in a month between 11:00
a.m. to 02:00 p.m., till the charges are framed;
iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his
passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same
with the Police Station concerned;
v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without
the permission of the Trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or
any person concerned with the case;
th
4 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 13_BA_2869_2025.doc
vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of
residence and contact number immediately after
being released and / or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court
seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the Police Station concerned;
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
8. Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
9. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
th
4 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 13_BA_2869_2025.doc
10. Since Bail Application is disposed of, nothing
survives for consideration in the Interim Application; hence
the same is also disposed of.
11. In any case by order dated 3rd October, 2025 last
opportunity was given to the Applicant to file Intervention
Application. Despite filing of Intervention Application none
appeared on behalf of the Intervenor.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
th
4 February 2026
