1 ABA : 281/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2011 Sanjiv Kumar Nandpal .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. S.A. Sawant, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar, Advocate for Intervener. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 8th August, 2011 P.C. 1. This application for anticipatory bail is in connection with C.R. No.37 of 2011 registered at CBD Belapur Police Station, Navi Mumbai alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The other accused persons are 1) Paresh Javerchand Lodhaya, 2) Mahendra Sumatilal 2 ABA : 281/2011 Shah, 3) Pankaj Darshanlal Sharma, 4) Arun Laxman Deshmukh, 5) Sandesh Walmik More, 6) Amit Tulshiram Kadam, 7) Sachin Parshuram Bhoir and 8) Rupesh Krishna Bhopi, 9) Swetkumar Dora, 10)Datta Ghandat and the officers of CIDCO, who are yet to be named. Accused Nos. 1 to 8 have already been arrested. Swetkumar Dora and Datta Ghandat are reported to be absconding. 2. It is the prosecution case that the applicant and the other accused persons including the officers of CIDCO sold the land allotted by CIDCO to the father of the complainant, Kalya Padu Thakur. The agreement of sale of the land allegedly executed by Kalya Padu Thakur in favour of the applicant is dated 23rd July 2008. According to the complainant, his father had died in the year 1982. The accused persons therefore had obviously put up a bogus person not just for execution of the agreement but also for it s registration. The price of the land agreed to be ’ paid was of Rs.1,06,00,000/-, out of which Rs.65,00,000/- 3 ABA : 281/2011 was allegedly paid to Kalya Padu Thakur. Within less than a month thereafter the applicant sold the land to Tirupati Infrastructure Private Limited and received a sum of Rs. 1,41,79,240/-. 3. The applicant claims that he himself is a victim of fraud played by officers of the CIDCO. He alleges that one N.S. Patil, an officer of CIDCO since deceased, one another officer and one estate agent by name Pankaj Sharma brought Kalya Thakur as perspective seller of the property to him. The applicant believed the officers of CIDCO and the estate agent and entered into the transaction. 4. The claim of total innocence made by the applicant is not supported by the material collected during investigation. Pankaj Sharma revealed in his statement that he was working with the applicant and the absconding accused Swetkumar. According to Pankaj Sharma, the person who had posed as Kalya Padu Thakur is in fact known to the applicant herein and Swetkumar 4 ABA : 281/2011 Dora. The amount of Rs.65,00,000/- paid by the applicant to bogus Kalya Padu Thakur is by six cheques issued between 17th July 2008 to 13th August 2008. All cheques were bearer cheques and the amount thereunder withdrawn on the same day. The cheques bear a thumb impression on the reverse side, which is purported to be the thumb impression of the drawee of the cheques Kalya Padu Thakur. Some of the cheques show that the drawee had been identified in the bank either by the applicant herein or his employee. These facts prima facie support the prosecution allegations. Considering the facts, the contention of the learned APP that the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required cannot be rejected. 5. Mr. Sawant submits that the applicant has already deposited substantial amount in this court at the time of grant of interim anticipatory bail in order to show his bonafides. He states that the applicant is willing to deposit the balance amount, which would be to the 5 ABA : 281/2011 extent the price paid to Kalya Padu Thakur. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the original complainant, as also the APP., mere deposit of the amount would not sufficient and it cannot be of any assistance for the investigation into the crime. The facts alleged constituting the offences are serious enough. In that circumstance, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is rejected. The applicant is at liberty to withdraw the amounts deposited by him pursuant to the orders passed in this application. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)