1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5021 OF 2009 Navinkumar Shivdeo Rai ... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. Mr. Mukesh H. Ahooja for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. A complaint was filed by one Satish Shetty vide C.R. No.152 of 2009 which is registered at Lonavala City Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Sub-Registrar Smt. Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar and 17 others, including the present applicant. Prosecution case is that these 2 accused conspired to change the revenue record. It is submitted that the land was acquired by the Government and the Mutation Entry was made in the record of rights vide Mutation Entry No. 569. It is alleged that the accused cancelled the said entry and a fresh Mutation Entry was made vide Mutation Etnry No.639 and, thereafter, corrections were made in 7 x 12 Extract and, after effecting the said change in the record of rights, the land was sold by the applicant. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the said Mutation Entry No.639 was made long after acquisition of the disputed land was cancelled and the name of Executive Engineer, Highway Development was deleted. It is submitted that no forgery was committed by executing sale deed in favour of Aryan Infrastructure Investment Pvt. Ltd. 4. It appears that inquiry was made after the said complaint was filed and in the said inquiry it was revealed that after the said Mutation Entry was made, the land has been transferred to number of persons. A report was tendered in the said inquiry and it was revealed that the Executive Engineer, Mumbai Road Development and Sankalpchitra Division-1 is 3 still owner of the said land. Investigation of the said complaint is still going on. In my view, therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant may apply for regular bail. 5. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)