1 apln3515-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3515 OF 2010 Shri Khatmullah Shahzad Siddiqui and 4 others. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.M.K. Kocharekar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 09TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the five applicants apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.I-92 of 2010 registered with Shanti Nagar police station, Bhiwandi. 2. Allegations against the applicants are that on the forged and fabricated alleged conveyance deed dated 26.3.2009, they had forcibly entered one room premises by dispossessing the original complainant and infact taken away all the household belongings, jewelery and cash amount. Such allegations are against applicant Nos.1,2 & 5. 2 apln3515-10 3. Allegedly according to the applicant No.2 she had purchased the said room from the original owner for total consideration of Rs.5 lakh and infact a sort of conveyance deed was prepared. Said conveyance deed copy is annexed to the present bail application, which is at page Nos.58 to 63. It show certain signatures purported to be that of original owner along with his photograph and also the thumb impression of the present applicant No.2 with her photograph. It is curious enough to note that the said conveyance deed is on Rs.100/- general stamp paper and it is a notarized document and infact on the strength of such document allegedly an application was made on 11.1.2010 to the local Municipal Corporation of Bhiwandi and infact said room was got transferred in the name of applicant No.2. It appears that such alleged conveyance deed, without there being any registration with Sub-Registrar of Assurances, has been accepted for transfer of rights. This is the aspect to be dealt with differently by the appropriate parties. 4. According to the allegations of the original complainant, she was dispossessed from the said property 3 apln3515-10 sometime on 30.1.2010 when she along with her husband had been out of the house attending some dispensary. By that time, breaking open the lock, the applicants took forcible possession. Initially she rushed to the local police station, however, without any success. Thereafter sometime in mid of February, 2010 written applications were made to the police. However, sometime in March, 2010 the complainant was asked to attend the police station. Thereafter private complaint was lodged with the concerned J.M.F.C.. at Bhiwandi and orders under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. were passed and the matter again reached to the same police station which then ultimately registered the offence mentioning the names of the present applicants as accused. Apprehending their arrest in the said crime, present application is preferred. 5. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that concerning the same room, civil litigations are pending between the parties. It is further submitted that in the suit filed by the original complainant which is for perpetual injunction valued at Rs.1000/- in 4 apln3515-10 para-3 there is a specific averment that on 11.1.2010 defendant Nos.1 & 2 i.e. present applicant Nos.2 & 1 dispossessed the original complainant. The said Suit is filed on or about 21.1.2010. Whereas the suit filed by present applicant No.2 is again for similar relief of injunction and valued at Rs.1000/- and is filed subsequently i.e. on 2.2.2010. The dates are of much significance. So also the dates of the alleged sale deed and the gift deed are also significant. According to the original complainant the said room was gifted to her by her uncle by gift deed dated 27.1.2009. The alleged sale deed which is a notarized document is dated 26.3.2009 whereas the said uncle died on 2.12.2009. Even making of the application to the local municipal corporation for getting the documents assessment in the name of applicant No.2 is made significantly after the death of the original owner and which is dated 11.1.2010. 6. During the arguments, learned A.P.P. for the State shown original conveyance deed and copy of the gift deed. There is a marked difference in the signature of the original owner in both of the documents. Coupled with this, he 5 apln3515-10 further submitted on behalf of the State that the statement of the notary, learned Advocate from Bhivandi, mentions that without there being any parties brought before him, one concerned Advocate for the parties brought the already signed deed of conveyance and believing the words of said Advocate, it was notarized by the notary. This aspect also needs certain investigation and consideration respectively by the police and also the Court which will be seized of the matter. 7. All the same, considering the rival submissions, it is not a fit case in which discretionary relief of prearrest bail can be granted in favour of the applicants. Hence the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.3515 of 2010 for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 3.apln3515-10