1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4179 OF 2009 1. Tribhuvandas Mavaji Rughani 2. Pinakin Tribhuvandas Rughani ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/b. Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the Applicants. Mrs.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.Javed S. Darjiwalla i/b. Mr.Majeed Memon, Sr.Counsel for the Intervenor. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 1, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2 The applicants are one of the partners of M/s.Raghuvanshi Constructions and are engaged in the construction business. The applicants firm had 2 purchased the building known as Krishna Kunj from the owner and the occupiers of the said building. On 3rd November, 2008, one Jayaben Joshi who was the resident of the said building received a letter from the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, R-South Ward, in which she was asked to produce the documents for the purpose of showing that AC sheet roof which was put in the open terrace adjoining to her flat on the second floor was constructed after the permission was granted by the Corporation. She was informed that if she did not have necessary permission, she should remove the unauthorised construction. After she received the said letter, she removed the said roof in May 2009. One Vipul Ashar who was interested in developing the said Krishna Kunj made a complaint to the Municipal Corporation that some unauthorised construction was going on in Krishna Kunj building. In view of his complaint, the officer of the Municipal Corporation visited the premises of the said Jayaben and made enquiries. The co-accused Rashmin Rughani who was present at that place 3 informed the officer that pursuant to the letter which was written by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, R-South Ward, dated 3rd November, 2008, said Jayaben had removed the said roof which was put on the said wall. He showed the said letter to the said officer. Thereafter, a complaint was registered by one Chandrashekhar Marathe who was in the Municipal Corporation on 10th August, 2009 alleging that this letter had been forged and fabricated by the co-accused Rashmin Rughani. The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the said complaint. 3 The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are not, in any manner, involved in the said letter. He submitted that the said Jayaben Joshi had, in fact, removed the said roof and had informed the Corporation by her letter dated 16th May, 2009. She also in her statement to the police had reiterated what she has stated in the said letter. 4 4 Taking into consideration these facts, in my view, prima facie case has been made out by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. The occupant has reiterated the stand that the said roof which was put by her was unauthorised and therefore, she had removed the same. There was no occasion for the applicants to forge and fabricate the said letter. In any event, the complaint has been filed by an interested person who wanted to develop the property. 5 The learned Counsel for the intervenor in this case has filed a detailed affidavit in reply. I have heard him at length. The said intervenor has no locus in the present case. He is occupant of the ground floor and according to him, his rights will be affected as a result of the said complaint. I do not see how the intervenor would have any locus in the present dispute or a complaint which is registered against the present applicants. The 5 submission made by the learned Counsel for the intervenor cannot be accepted. Prima facie case is made out by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. 6 An Interim order is passed by this Court by order dated 17th September, 2009. The applicants, therefore, in the event of their arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 420 read with 34 of the IPC registered vide FIR No.249 of 2009 on 10th August, 2009 with the Kandivali Police Station, be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount. They shall co- operate with the police and shall visit the police station as and when called. 6 The application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)