The North Goa Additional Sessions Court at Merces has granted bail to businessman Siddique alias Suleman Khan in the alleged 2020 Mapusa land-grabbing and forgery case.
The court held that continued judicial custody would amount to “pre-trial punishment”, citing an inconclusive forensic report and the absence of any direct recovery linking the accused to forged seals. According to the prosecution, Khan and unidentified accomplices allegedly fabricated a fraudulent sale deed dating back to 1999 to usurp prime land belonging to Lina D’Souza.
The property is designated as Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 67 in Mapusa. The chargesheet alleges that the forged deed was substituted in the records of the Sub-Registrar of Bardez. A certified copy was subsequently used before the Inspector of Survey and Land Records in Mapusa to mutate the land records in Khan’s name, after which the original evidence was destroyed.
The chargesheet accuses Siddique of forgery of valuable security, counterfeiting seals, cheating and destruction of evidence. Khan’s earlier bail application was rejected in January 2026 on account of his previous record of jumping bail and concerns that he might flee. He subsequently filed a fresh application, citing a material change in circumstances following the submission of a forensic analysis report.
Appearing for Khan, defence advocates Sahil Sardessai and Vinayak Porobo submitted that the report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Pune, failed to establish that Khan’s handwriting or signature appeared on the disputed sale deed.
The defence also argued that Khan had been a bona fide purchaser of the property for more than 25 years and emphasised that no counterfeit seals had been recovered from him to support the serious charges. The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that Khan faced serious charges carrying a possible sentence of life imprisonment, posed a significant flight risk and had a history of absconding. It further contended that the Sub-Registrar’s signature on the document had been confirmed to be forged, that further investigation was required to obtain fresh specimen signatures, and that key witnesses could be intimidated.
However, while granting bail, the court held that the inconclusive CFSL report constituted a material change in circumstances. Addressing the prosecution’s contention that old records were missing from the Sub-Registrar’s office, the court referred to Supreme Court jurisprudence and observed that a document cannot automatically be presumed to be forged merely because official records have been weeded out or remain untraceable after several decades.
The court also held that prolonged incarceration pending further forensic examination would be unfair. Allowing the bail application, the court ordered Khan’s release on a personal bond of ₹50,000, along with one surety for the like amount.
