MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 07-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 979 
MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Complaint against appellant for C 
committing forgery in lease deed and other documents in 
respect of property belonging to complainant and furnishing 
false information to Education Authorities - Held: It is true that 
the parties have also approached civil court for various reliefs 
- At the same time, considering the seriousness relating to o 
additions/alterations made in various documents, information 
furnished to the Education Authorities which, according to 
them, are incorrect, and in order to secure possession of those 
documents, custodial interrogation of appellant is necessary 
- Courts below rightly rejected the relief of anticipatory bail -
E 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 465, 468 and 471 rlw s.34 /PC. 
F 
Respondent No.2-Trustee of a Charity Trust filed a 
complaint against the appellant-Founder President and 
Managing Trustee of a Technical Education Society for 
offences punishable u/ss 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 
s.34 IPC stating that the Charity Trust leased certain 
properties to the appellant to run the school housed in a 
building on the said property, under a lease deed for a 
period of 35 months w.e.f. 15.4.2008, and when on the 
expiry of the lease period, i.e. on 9.3.2011, the possession 
G 
of the said building and land was to be handed over back 
to the Trust, it was revealed that the appellant had made 
forgery in the lease deed and other documents and 
asserted his claim over the property. The appellant 
979 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A applied for anticipatory bail which was also opposed by 
the State on the ground that he had produced copies of 
false documents and submitted false information to the 
Education Department while obtaining permission for 
running the school. The prayer was declined by the 
B Additional Sessions Judge as also the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Additional Sessions Judge and the 
High Court while considering the application for 
C anticipatory bail scrutinized/analysed the materials. It is 
true that the parties have also approached the civil court 
for various reliefs. At the same time, there are serious 
allegations against the appellant relating to corrections/ 
additions/alterations made in various documents, 
D information furnished to the Educational Authorities 
which, according to them are incorrect, and allegation that 
the appellant has made false representation before the 
Public Authority on the basis of those documents for 
obtaining necessary permission. This Court is, therefore, 
E of the view that in order to bring out all the material 
information and documents, more particularly, to 
ascertain in respect of the documents which were alleged 
to have been forged and fabricated and which are in 
possession of the appellant and in order to secure their 
F possession, the custodial interrogation is necessary. 
Therefore, in view of the mandate prescribed in s.438 of 
the Code, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High 
Court were right in rejecting the relief of anticipatory bail. 
[Para 12, 14] [986-D-H; 987-A, C] 
G 
1.2 It is stated that after the order of this Court dated 
23.09.2011 granting interim protection to the appellant, he 
has misused his liberty in creating hindrance to the 
investigation and continues to scuttle it and also has 
been intimidating and pressurizing the complainant as 
H well as the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the 
MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE v. STATE OF 
981 
MAHARASHTRA 
interim protection granted by this Court on 23.09.2011 
A 
shall stand vacated. [Para 13, 15] [987-8, DJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1376 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.09.2011 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Bombay in Criminal Application No. 786 
of 2011. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Ranjit Kumar, Krishnan Venugopal, V. 
B 
Prakash, Vineet Naik, Sukand Kulkarni, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij 
C 
Kishor Sah, Anish R. Shah for the Appellant. 
Prashant Bhushan, Chinmoy Khaldkar, Sanjay V. Kharde, 
Asha Gopalan Nair, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 
19.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.