1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.496 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4598 OF 2009 1.Mahesh Satyaprakash Agrawal 2.Pratap Shivji Somaya ....Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Shri Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel for Applicants Mr. H.J. Dedhia  APP for State Mr. M.S. Karnik for Original Complainant. ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the Original Complainant. 2. An agreement for sale was executed between Shyamsundar Agrawal and Somabhai Patel and it is alleged that the said agreement was executed in the presence of the present Applicant No.1- Mahesh Agrawal 1 who was identified by the Applicant No.2 Shri Pratap Shivji Somaya before a Notary. It is alleged in the complaint that this agreement is a forged and fabricated document and it was never executed by the complainant with Somabhai Patel. This complaint was filed in the year 2009. According to Shyamsundar Agrawal, the agreement in question was executed in 2007. A suit was filed by Shyamsundar Agrawal in the Civil Court at Nashik and the notice was issued by the Court and after the writ of summons was served on the Complainant, he learnt about the said forgery and, therefore, he filed the said complaint. According to the Complainant, he received an amount of Rs.1.50 crores. However, the total consideration was Rs.7 crores and not Rs.5 crores as mentioned in this agreement. 3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, in my view, the applicants have made out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail. The police have given the said agreement in the custody of the Civil Court, Nashik. The said document will have to be sent to the hand-writing expert to verify whether it is forged and fabricated document or not. For that purpose, continued detention of the Applicants, in my view, is not necessary, particularly because the Applicant No.1 is a witness, in whose presence the 1 said document is allegedly signed and the Applicant No.2 has identified the same before a Notary. 4. Shri Karnik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant, however, invited my attention to the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik dated 5.10.2009 wherein certain conditions have been imposed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik on the Senior Inspector, Nashik Road Police Station. He submitted that as a result of the said conditions, it would not be possible for the Investigating Agency to obtain the opinion from a hand-writing expert. 5. The learned APP for the State, however, pointed out that the said order has been challenged by the prosecution. So far as the said order is concerned, since it is challenged and appropriate order will be passed in the application filed by the APP and suitable directions can be given to the police in order to ensure that the opinion of the hand writing expert is obtained expeditiously. However, for that purpose, it is not necessary to detain the present Applicants. 6. The Applicants, therefore, in the event of their arrest in connection with an offence which is 1 registered vide M.E.C.R. No.1 of 2009 with Nashik Road Police Station, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount. They shall, however, report to the concerned police station, as and when called. 7. Applications are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)