1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1049 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Deorao Ramchandra Zade] With Criminal Application No. 1050 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Shobharani Rajendra Nalode] With Criminal Application No. 1051 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Rajendra Anantramji Kuhite] With Criminal Application No. 1052 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Satish Pandurang Tajen] With Criminal Application No.1053 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Arun Shankarrao Bhagwat & another] With Criminal Application No. 1054 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Sanjay Gajanan Satpute] With Criminal Application No. 1055 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Kishor Pannalal Gurarikar & another] With Criminal Application No. 1056 of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Prashant Wamanrao Dhandole & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Criminal Application No. 1049/10 : Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- Criminal Application No. 1050/10 : Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- Criminal Application No. 1051/10 : 2 Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- Criminal Application No. 1052/10 : Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- Criminal Application No. 1053/10 : Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- Criminal Application No. 1054/10 : Mr. C.N. Adgokar, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- Criminal Application No. 1055/10 : Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- Criminal Application No. 1056/10 : Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for applicant. None for the respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 16th August, 2010. 1. These are applications for cancellation of bail. 2. Heard learned APPs for the applicant. 3. Role of different accused persons is, namely:- [a] They are the plot holders  3 purchasers or witnesses; and; [b] they are alleged to have forged the sanction of a layout of Gunthewari Authorities and dealt with the transactions inter se. 4. If a property is purchased on the basis of a bogus or forged sanction of a layout and a person who is deceived, is aggrieved, he can file a complaint. 5. Moreover, it is not clear whether it is a case of the complainant  Municipal Authority that the records pertaining to and in the Office of the Municipal Council were forged. 6. In the present case, those who have cheated by forgery and those who are cheated due to said forgery all may be accused, however, it is not seen clearly as to who are those responsible for forgery as its authors. 7. It is open to the Authorities to disregard forged documents and deal with the accused persons according to law. 8. Whatever are the penalties or dues recoverable by the Municipal Authorities can always be recovered by them. 9. At this stage, it would not be possible to conclude that the accused persons are 4 essentially involved in commission of such offence that they should lose their liberty. 10. Moreover, investigation, which is in progress, is not shown to be hindered in any manner by the accused persons. 11. The ground, which is pressed in support of cancellation of bail, is that on the basis of material available on record, bail should not have been granted. 12. On the basis of material available on record, view taken by learned Sessions Judge that prima facie, no specific offence was made out against the accused persons and, therefore, they deserve bail, is not seen or shown to be illegal. 13. In these premises, these applications have no merit, and are rejected. Judge |Hedau|