1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA)No.326/2011 Shamsher Ali s/o Jabbar Ali ..vs.. The state of Mah Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.M. Rizwy , Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S.S.Doifode , A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 12.10.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant who apprehends his arrest in Crime NO.34/2011 registered at Police Station, Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and presently investigated upon by Economics Office Wing, Crime Branch, Nagpur, has filed the present application for pre-arrest bail. 3. The prosecution case is as follows: Niraj Bankar, Shahnawaz Khan, Shamsher Ali and Jiya Khan were doing layout business and selling plots to the customers. Niraj Bankar and others had a firm – agency in the name of Saibaba Housing Agency and they had agreed to sale Plot No.23, Mouja Wanjra to the complainant and the complainant had to pay total amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (rupees one lac twenty thousand) from time to time and on 8.2.2010 after payment of entire consideration, Niraj gave possession letter to the complainant. Said Shahnawaz Khan is son in law of the present applicant, whereas Jiya Khan is brother in law of Shahnawaz Khan. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter Niraj Bankar and the applicant came to the house of the complainant and told her that they can increase the area of 2 her plot, if she pays an amount of Rs.30,000/- more. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.30,000/- more which made the total amount paid as Rs.1,50,000/. It is alleged that inspite of the above, the applicant and others did not give excess plot nor did they execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. 4. According to learned Advocate Shri Rizwy there is an agreement for sale between the complainant – Lata Rajput and Niraj Bankar regarding the said plot, to which agreement the applicant is not a party. He has further argued that Niraj Bankar has entered into an agreement with the original land owner namely Bhende with regard to the bigger property and has also filed a suit for specific performance of the contract which is pending and that the matter even went upto the High Court wherein the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has been deposited and both parties have been ordered to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property. According to him, therefore, the transaction is genuine and applicant has nothing to do with the same. 5. It is pointed out that previously one co-accused by name Jiya Khan was granted anticipatory bail under condition that he should deposit Rs.30,000/- with the Investigating Officer. It is seen from the case papers that Jiya Khan has accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs.30,000/- before the Investigating Officer which has been attached in presence of panch witnesses. The main objection of the respondent is that the amount has to be recovered from the applicant though there are also other normal objections. In order to secure the said amount of Rs.30,000/- which has been allegedly handed over by the complainant to the present applicant, a condition to deposit the said amount with the Investigating Officer without prejudice to the rights of the parties, can be put. In my view the applicant deserves anticipatory bail with the said condition. 3 6. Hence the application is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the applicant in Crime No.34/2011 registered at Police Station Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur, he shall be released on bail upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount under the following conditions: a) The applicant shall attend the Crime Branch [Economic Offences Wing] Nagpur on 20.10.2011 between 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and shall hand over the cash amount of Rs.30,000/- which shall be attached by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch witnesses, but the said attachment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties which would be decided at the end of the trial. b) The applicant shall thereafter attend the said Crime Branch Office as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer to do so. c) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer d) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial court. 7. The application stands disposed of. Hamdast granted. JUDGE SMP