1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.799 of 2010 [Kishore N. Telang Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 08th June, 2010. 1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant has been named as accused in Crime No. 86/2010 registered with Police Station Saoner, Distt. Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:- [a] The applicant-accused and one Ejaj-ur-Rahman Khan son of Mubarak Khan Nawab have purchased property which is an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 363, admeasuring 2.50 hectares, situated at Patansawangi, from 2 Mohendrasingh Company through Ravindrasingh son of Mohendrasingh Ganduk. [b] It is alleged that the sale was executed by impersonating Ravindrasingh Ganduk, and the accused-applicant is a party to said act of fabrication, forgery, impersonation etc. 4. This Court had granted ad interim protection to the applicant by order dated 11th May, 2010. 5. Today, the application is opposed by filing an Affidavit-in-Reply. 6. Heard. 7. Perused the Case Diary, Affidavit-in- Reply and scrutinized the submissions. 8. Perusal of sale-deed discloses that 2.50 hectares, namely more than six acres land, is purchased for the consideration of Rs.5,00,000-00, and that too by paying same in cash, which price appears to be on extremely lower side even than the price which would be fetched on a distress sale. 9. It is also seen that had it been a case that the applicant was cheated by said impersonator, no sooner the applicant was named 3 as accused, he would have approached the police for lodging a complaint of cheating against the impersonator. The applicant has admittedly not done so till date. 10. In these premises, it is seen that the transaction of purchase by the applicant prima facie lacks good faith and diligence, apart it prima facie depicts a possibility of applicant's involvement in the offence. 11. It, therefore, prima facie reveals that at this stage it cannot be said that the applicant is not involved in commission of offence complained of. 12. In the result, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. 13. Application is, therefore, rejected. 14. Ad interim order granted by this Court is vacated. Judge |Hedau| 4