The Mapusa Fast Track Additional Sessions Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by 66-year-old businessman Rajesh Sawaikar in connection with an alleged land fraud case involving the Communidade of Serula. However, in a related application arising from the same FIR, the court granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Roshni Rajesh Sawaikar, observing that custodial interrogation was not necessary in her case.
On October 5, 2026, Porvorim police registered an FIR against Rajesh Sawaikar and Roshni Rajesh Sawaikar for alleged forgery and cheating, based on a complaint filed by Peter Martins, Attorney of the Communidade of Serula. The complaint alleged that forged and fabricated documents, including a certificate dated April 22, 2004, an Official Gazette notification dated October 9, 1997, payment receipts, Communidade resolutions, and government correspondence, were used to fraudulently claim title and possession of plots in Survey No. 362/1 at Socorro village in Bardez, without following the mandatory statutory allotment procedures.
Opposing Sawaikar's plea, the prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was essential to recover the original forged documents, establish their source, and uncover the larger conspiracy. The investigation revealed that the Official Gazette entry relied upon by the applicant was actually in the name of another individual. Further, no general body resolution concerning the allotment or processing of Plot No. 26 had ever been passed or recorded in the Communidade's proceedings books. The photocopies of payment receipts submitted by Sawaikar, amounting to ₹3,96,900, were also alleged to be bogus, as there were no corresponding entries or deposits in the Communidade's cash books.
The defence counsel argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, referring to a pending regular civil suit before the Civil Court at Mapusa. It was further contended that the documents in question were more than two decades old, that the applicant was being targeted ahead of the forthcoming elections, and that multiple FIRs were pending against the complainant himself.
Rejecting these arguments, the court observed that a substantial amount of nearly ₹4 lakh could not have been paid in cash without leaving any trace in the official accounts. It noted that the receipts appeared to be fabricated on a prima facie assessment. The court further held that the mere pendency of a civil suit did not shield an accused from criminal investigation into serious offences such as forgery and cheating. It concluded that granting pre-arrest protection to Sawaikar would hamper an effective investigation.
However, while granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Roshni Sawaikar, the court observed that although the complaint alleged fabrication in connection with Plot Nos. B and C, measuring 500 square metres, the applicant had not claimed title on the basis of any Communidade allotment certificates. Instead, her claim was based on a registered Deed of Sale dated May 8, 2013, for Plot No. A-20, acquired through a traceable chain of title involving previous private purchasers.
Finding that custodial interrogation was not necessary in her case, the court directed that she be released on a personal bond of ₹30,000, along with one local surety, in the event of her arrest. The relief was made subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigating officer, furnishing her contact details, and not travelling abroad without prior permission from the court.
