1 ABA 627,628/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.627 OF 2011 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.628 OF 2011 Mr. Gopal Gunja Shelke & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Ramchandra Kachave, Advocate for applicants. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 10th August, 2011 P.C. 1. This is a common order on the above two applications for anticipatory bail. The five applicants apprehend their arrest in C.R. Nos. 9 of 2011 and 8 of 2011, both registered with Karjat Police Station for the same offences i.e. Offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are lawyers by profession. Learned APP fairly concedes that the F.I.R. in both the proceedings do not contain any allegation against 2 ABA 627,628/2011 applicant no.4 whatsoever. He will, therefore, be entitled for anticipatory bail. The allegations made against the applicants in the two complaints is identical. One Beharm Dubhash and Nargis Pesi Bharucha are independent owners of the two pieces of land at Karjat. It is the prosecution case that all the applicants herein had put up two bogus persons as Nargis Pesi Bharucha and B. Dubhash and purchased the “ ” property in favour of applicant nos. 1 and 3 by executing registered document. The applicants do not dispute that the persons from whom they purchased the properties are not genuine owners of the properties. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant nos. 1 and 3 are in fact the victims of the fraud played by unknown persons and therefore they should be granted anticipatory bail. It has been pointed out by the learned APP that applicant no.2, who is the daughter of applicant no.1 has signed the sale-deed as a witness identifying both, the purchasers i.e. her father, and his relative, applicant no.3 and the seller. This fact is sufficient to discard the claim made by the applicants at this stage of the proceedings. Learned APP states that the police 3 ABA 627,628/2011 had arrested the bogus persons, who have since been released on bail. Considering these facts of the case, this court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers to grant anticipatory bail to applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The application filed by them are therefore dismissed. As regards applicant no.4, since there is no allegation whatsoever in the two complaints against him in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. Nos. 9 of 2011 and 8 of 2011, both registered with Karjat Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. He shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigation Officer as and when required. He 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. He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)