* 1 * ABA.192.2011 ABA.190.2011 9.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2011 Ramesh Babasaheb Hogale ....Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2011 Nanasaheb Kondiba Kharat ....Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM :­ Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 9th August, 2011. P.C. :­ 1. The learned APP states that the concerned Investigation Officer is not present today. Perusal of the record shows that adjournments have been taken by the State on this ground atleast three to four times. Perusal of the order dated 9th March, 2011 further shows that a query which had been made by the * 2 * ABA.192.2011 ABA.190.2011 9.8.2011 Court on that day as to at what point of time the original complainant learnt about the alleged alteration in the power of attorney has not been answered till date. It appears that the learned APP has also not taken any instructions from the concerned Investigation Officer in respect of that query. 2. The dispute raised in the complaint is regarding alteration in the power of attorney allegedly at the instance of the applicants herein. There is no dispute that after executing the agreement of sale of the property in favour of the applicants, power of attorney had been executed in his favour in the year 1999. According to the complainant, the power of attorney was limited to securing permissions from the appropriate authorities for sale of the property. Power of attorney was allegedly altered to include an authority for sale of the property. With the alterations in the power of attorney, the property is alleged to have been sold. There is no dispute that almost the entire price of the land had been received by the original complainant at the time of agreement * 3 * ABA.192.2011 ABA.190.2011 9.8.2011 of sale and possession of the property also handed over. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is obvious that no custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. Hence, the applications are allowed. The order of interim anticipatory bail are confirmed. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigation Officer as and when required. They shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]