1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 69 /2010 [ Sou.Rani @ Shubhangi w/o Raju Sant vs. State of Maharashtra) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Lubesh Meshram Adv. for applicant Mr K S Dhote, APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 3, 2010. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Cr.No. 147/2009 which was reported under sections 199, 200, 406, 471 read with section 34 IPC at Umred Police Station, on the basis of complaint by one Vijay Telrandhe. It appears that the applicant had moved learned Additional Sessions Judge- 4 Nagpur who, by order dated 11.1.2010 rejected the prayer for bail in Misc.Cri. Appln.No.35/2010 considering that the applicant cannot claim parity along with other co-accused who were granted bail, particularly because of material collected during the course of investigation indicating that the applicant had very cleverly hatched a plan by showing the first informant as dead and got prepared his bogus death certificate from Chandrapur Municipal Council and got agricultural land belonging to the complainant transferred in the name of co-accused with further plan to sell it to a Builder for a valuable 2 consideration after grabbing the same. It further appears from the material collected during the investigation that the present applicant had obtained death certificate from neighbourer which was in the name of one Purushottam Raghunath Madavi who died in Chandrapur on 17.3.2009. Thus, collecting the basic information as to how to obtain death certificate from the Municipal Council, she in cahoots with the the other co- accused, obtained a death certificate in the name of the complainant ( first informant ) showing him as dead while showing one of the co-accused as his widow. After obtaining mutation entry on the basis of bogus death certificate, an agreement to sell was entered into with one Ajay Arun Dantulwar in which the present applicant appeared as a witness while executants were shown as Smt.Jyoti Vijay Telrandhe who in fact was another lady by name Jyoti Kumbhare; while names of Sau.Puja Manoj Bhoyar; Sau. Shweta Pradip Taiwade and Neeta Deepak Ramteke were also cited as owners of agricultural land bearing Gut No. 554 admeasuring an area of 2 H 9R which was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs in writing, while accepting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the proposed proposer who appears to have verified and on enquiry detected the fraud in which false and bogus documents were forged and fabricated in order to grab the land and thereafter to sell it for valuable consideration. 3 3. The accusations under section 467 is serious as the offence is punishable to the extent of imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years as also fine. It goes without saying that such offence as it is treated on the same pedestal as serious offences like murder or rape by the Legislature in its infinite wisdom. 4. For the reasons afore-stated, I am not prepared to take a different view than that taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -4, Nagpur. The application is rejected. However, I hope and trust that since the case hinges mainly on documentary evidence, the Court below shall endeavour to dispose it of as fast as possible. JUDGE sahare