1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.993 OF 2011 Anil Rohidas Jadhav .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.994 OF 2011 Maruti Popat Mane .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.996 OF 2011 Pramod Vilas Bandkar .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.H.V.Bhadbhade, Advocate, for the Applicants in Cri.Appln.Nos.993 & 994 of 2011 Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate, for the Applicant in Cri.Appln.No.996 of 2011 Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Respondent  State in Cri.Appln.Nos.993 & 994 of 2011 Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP, for the Respondent  State in Cri.Appln.No.996 of 2011 Mr.Eknath V. Sawant, Advocate, for the Intervener 2 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. These are the applications for anticipatory bail by the persons, who apprehend arrest in connection with C.R.No.50 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 427, 468, 471, 166 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Devgad Police Station. The applicant in Cri.Appln.No. 993 of 2011 is the holder of Power of Attorney, who executed the sale deed in respect of the property of complainant and his family members in favour of one Borele of Dhanajbudruk, Taluka Karanja, District Washim. The properties are situated in Konkan. The applicants Maruti Popat Mane and Pramod Vilas Bandkar in the two other applications, have identified the persons, who 3 executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Anil Rohidas Jadhav. The applicant Mane states that he identified person, who executed Power of Attorney at the instance of Anil Jadhav. Maruti Mane states that he identified the executants of Power of Attoreny at the instance of one Sahdeo Mahadeo Ghadi which Sahdeo denies according to the statement of Sahdeo Ghadi made available for my perusal. Since the executants of Power of Attorney had been identified at the instance of Anil Jadhav and since it does not seem to be the matter of dispute now that those who have executed the Power of Attorney were not the persons whose names appeared therein, there is something which needs to be looked into. The learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg while rejecting the bail application of the present applicant Anil Jadhav had stated that two logical inferences could be drawn that the offence has been committed by the present applicant in connivance with the 9 consenting 4 co-sharers or that those 9 consenting co-sharers have defrauded the present applicants by making false representation and that at that stage, it was clear that the fraud has been practiced upon and the question for determination was who has practiced fraud and upon whom. Be that as it may. The learned counsel for the applicants states that to show their bona fide the applicant Anil Jadhav would deposit a sum of ` 15,00,000/- within a period of 30 days in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate F. C., Devgad. The learned Magistrate shall invest the said amount in interest earning deposit in a Nationalized Bank and deal with it at the end of the trial as per the result of the trial. If the amount is not so deposited, the order shall stand revoked. This applicant Anil Rohidas Jadhav shall do so without prejudice to his rights and defences. Should there be any occasion to transfer the amount to a competent Civil Court, the Civil Court shall deal with it. 5 In view of this, in the event of arrest, applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R.Bond of ` 50,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of ` 50,000/- on the following conditions. (i) The applicants shall report at the Devgad Police Station on 23rd December, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer. The learned counsel for the applicants states that they shall make available for the purpose of investigation with all the original documents which may be in their possession. The applicant Anil Rohidas Jadhav shall deposit a sum of ` 15,00,000/- within a period of 30 days in the Court of Judicial Magistrate F. C., Devgad. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the order shall stand revoked without further reference to the Court. (ii) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iii) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. . The order will remain in force till the 6 trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2011 (SC) 312(Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra And Ors.). 3. Criminal Applications are disposed of. 4. In view of disposal of Criminal Applications, Intervention Applications do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)