Mumbai: Dindoshi Sessions Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 4 Accused In Goregaon Property Forgery And Cheating Case

The Dindoshi Sessions Court has rejected anticipatory bail pleas filed by four accused in a Goregaon property dispute involving allegations of forgery and cheating. The court noted that claims of fabricated documents and forged signatures require detailed investigation, especially after a private expert's report supported the allegations.

Add FPJ As a
Trusted Source
Mumbai: Dindoshi Sessions Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 4 Accused In Goregaon Property Forgery And Cheating Case
Charul Shah Joshi Updated: Wednesday, May 27, 2026, 11:12 PM IST
Mumbai: Dindoshi Sessions Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 4 Accused In Goregaon Property Forgery And Cheating Case

The Dindoshi Sessions Court refused anticipatory bail to four accused in a disputed Goregaon property transaction involving alleged forgery and fabricated documents | Representational Image

Mumbai, May 28: The Dindoshi Sessions Court has refused anticipatory bail to partners of Kiran Construction Company and two others accused of forgery and cheating in an alleged attempt to stall the transfer of a valuable Goregaon property affected by the Coastal Road project.

Allegations linked to Goregaon property transfer

The case was filed against partners Ravi Pujari and Uday Pujari, along with Pravin Singh and Vinay Singh. According to the complainant, the construction firm owned properties at Pahadi Goregaon and Poman in Palghar district. The partners had allegedly agreed to sell the Goregaon property, for which Rs 85 lakh was paid in cash.

As permissions for the transaction were delayed, both sides allegedly agreed that the complainant would take over the firm through a reconstituted partnership deed for Rs 2.68 crore. The Pujari brothers retired from the firm and new partners were inducted.

The complainant alleged that after the Coastal Road project increased the property’s value, the accused forged documents by inserting additional pages into the partnership deed and forging his signature to show that only the firm, and not its properties, had been transferred.

Court cites need for detailed investigation

The accused denied receiving the money and claimed the firm still remained in their names. They alleged breach of agreement by the complainant.

Also Watch:

Rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the court observed that the execution of the MoU and partnership deed was admitted, while allegations of forged signatures and fabricated pages required detailed investigation. The court also noted that a private expert’s report supported the forgery allegations.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Published on: Wednesday, May 27, 2026, 11:12 PM IST

RECENT STORIES