1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2191 OF 2009 Ganesh Kishanlal Agarwal .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr. Subhash Jha i/b M/s. Law Global for the applicant. Mr. J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 10th June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R. No.29 of 2009 of Satpur police station, Nashik. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant in collusion and connivance with other accused illegally transferred gala (shop premises) for consideration of Rs.3.50 Lacs, paid to the 2 complainant, and Rs.4.50 Lacs paid to MSFC. The complainant and the applicant executed MOU dated 3.3.1999, and thereafter on 18.1.2002 a deed of assignment was entered into and on the basis thereof the gala was transferred in favour of the applicant. According to the applicant, the general power of attorney was also executed by the complainant in favour of one Sanjay Agarwal giving all powers in respect of the gala. On the basis of the power of attorney, Sanjay Agarwal acted on behalf of the complainant for transferring the gala in the name of applicant. Some more documents, purportedly executed by the complainant, namely, letter addressed to NICE dated 6.8.1989 and letter addressed to Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd. are also relied upon by the applicant to contend that the transfer of gala was a genuine transaction. Mr.Jha, learned counsel for the applicant took me through all these documents to contend that the amount of Rs.3.50 Lacs was received by the complainant and that the applicant paid Rs.4.50 Lacs on behalf of the complainant to MSFC. He also invited my attention to the correspondence and some investigation papers to contend that the complainant has received the entire consideration amount of the gala and it was thereafter transferred in the name of the applicant. I have perused the entire material placed on record by the applicant so also the documents produced by the learned A.P.P. It appears from the documents on record, produced 3 by the learned A.P.P., that the investigating agency, so far, has carried out the investigation on proper line. It would not be proper to make reference to the investigation papers at this stage. However, I am prima facie satisfied that all the documents on which the applicant has relied upon, namely, the MOU dated 3.3.1999, the general power of attorney dated 1.12.2001, the letter dated 6.8.1999, the letter addressed to the Rupee Co-operative bank and the deed of assignment are forged documents. The signatures on all these documents, as is seen from the handwriting expert‘s report, are not that of the complainant. All these documents were used by the applicant for transferring the gala in his name showing that he purchased it from the complainant. Mr.Yagnik, learned A.P.P. submitted that for about three years the complainant was in coma and was hospitalised and the applicant took advantage of the situation and manufactured all these documents. Be that as it may, from perusal of the FIR it appears that the complainant had trusted the broker and handed him over the possession of gala and was awaiting no objection from NICE for executing necessary documents in order to transfer/sale the gala. The sale deed or any other document, transferring/selling the Gala, according to the complainant, was never executed either in favour of the applicant or any other person. He also denies the receipt of the amount of Rs.3.50 Lacs. That amount, it appears, 4 was withdrawn by a bearer cheque. The applicant has not produced any material on record to show that the amount, in fact, was withdrawn by the complainant. 4. On the last occasion the applicant was directed to co-operate with the investigation and produce certain documents before the police. According to the learned A.P.P. the applicant did not co-operate with the investigation and he refused to produce certain documents and more particularly the general power of attorney dated 1.12.2001 and the deed of assignment, before the police. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material produced before me I am satisfied that prima facie case is made out against the applicant and since the applicant is not co-operating with the investigation, his custody would be necessary for carrying out further investigation. Hence the application is rejected. 5. While passing this order, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. The application is disposed of. (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)