1appln-2655-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2655/2010 (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) Zahida Vali Sayyed And Anr .. .. Applicants. versus The State of Maharashtra .. .. Respondent. Mr A.P. Mundargi, Sr Counsel i/by A.M.Sarogi, for the Applicants. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. Mr A. H.H. Ponda, for the original complainant. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 29TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicants, who are accused nos.2 and 3 as mentioned in the M.E.C.R. No.4/2009 registered with D.N.Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. Said F.I.R. was registered on 21.12.2009 upon the directions from 40th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Andheri, Mumbai as per the provisions of Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal 2appln-2655-10 Procedure. 2. Initially, the present complainant-respondent No.2 filed a complaint before M.M.Court naming present applicants as accused Nos. 2 and 3 for taking action against them along with other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 386, 506 (II), 511 read with Section 120-B/34 of I.P.C. 3. It is significant to note that allegations against the applicants are mainly for specific offence under Section 386 of I.P.C. Apprehending the arrest at the hands of D.N. Nagar Police, in the above matter present anticipatory bail application was filed before this Court. Earlier anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay was dismissed. However, both the applicants were protected till 9.6.2010. Matter was taken for circulation before this Court by mentioning on 8.6.2010 and it was taken on 10.6.2010. On that day protection earlier granted by the Sessions Court was continued. It was so continued till today, as the matter did not reach for final hearing and today only rival arguments were heard and matter is taken for passing final order. 4. In short, the allegations against the applicants are that they had conspired with accused No.1 who is presently absconding and other 3appln-2655-10 accused by name Fayeem also has already been arrested and granted bail, to indulge in the transaction by way of constructing new tenements in place of old hutments area under Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme. Apparently, a society of those existing tenement holders was formed sometime in the year 2005 and present applicant No.2 was the promoter of the said society. However, subsequently, present applicant No.1, wife of applicant No.2 became promoter. One builder was approached and in connivance with other co-accused it was so decided to proceed with the competent authority i.e. S.R.A. Authority. There are specific allegations against the applicants that being the promoters of the said society, they were responsible for the documents which were produced before the competent authority for the purpose of getting sanction for the SRA scheme. Allegations against them are that even for the individual benefit of applicant no.1, certain fabricated documents were produced such as the rationing card which is admittedly not in existence as per the record of the rationing authority. This came to revelation through the report of the police, when such report is filed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 464/2010 filed by the present complainant-respondent for specific directions to the concerned police station for appropriate investigation in the present 4appln-2655-10 M.E.C.R.No.4/2009. So far as the activities of the said society at the hands of the promoter are concerned, earlier writ petition No. 801/2009 was filed by the present complainant - respondent and in view of such writ petition Administrator came to be appointed on the said society. 5. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the complainant that there are more than 12 instances in which the claimants at different serial number in the list annexure – II do not have proper documentation either by way of Gumastha licenses or the premises being of a commercial nature. There are certain circumstances brought to the notice of this Court as to the rationing card purported to be in the name of mother of the present applicant No.1 would not be considered as valid documents in so far as mother of applicant No.1 had died in the year 2002 and as such there cannot be any claim for and on behalf of such deceased woman and that also to be either claimed by her sister or by present applicant No.1. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that 26 tenements were not at all in existence, however, such claim was made in order to obtain the additional F.S.I. to get the tenements for such fictitious persons and to usurp the amount after selling the said tenements in the open market. The allegations are that it is the design 5appln-2655-10 of the applicants with co-accused to get huge amount to the tune of Rs. 5 crore by selling the said premises after the implementation of SRA scheme. 6. Considering the rival arguments and considering the material and also the factum of filing of two writ petitions by the present complainant, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant discretionary relief in favour of the applicants and hence present application is disposed of with the following order. ORDER: (a) application is rejected. (b) At this stage, a request is made on behalf of the applicants for granting interim protection. In fact, when this Court, initially, seized of the matter on 10.6.2010, the interim protection was already over on 9.6.2010, as granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the same was continued in order to have the argument on the matter from both the sides. All the same it is not a case in which such interim protection is yet to be continued after disposal of the present 6appln-2655-10 application. Consequently, request of interim protection is rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J) LRS-PA