1 Criminal Application No.528/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.528 OF 2011 Haji Abdul Rasheed s/o Haji Mohammed Hussain Kandhari ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for applicant Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri IS.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th February, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. The applicant entered into agreement of sale, dated 18.2.2009 in favour of the complainant and 4 others. Indeed such property was purchased by applicant from Abdul Tasleem. Mutation was to be effected. Consequent upon such arrangement, 8 months time was fixed in performance of contract. In the agreement of sale, a recital is for parting consideration of Rs.1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs) from the purchasers (including the complainant). The document relates to Sr.No.13/D, 13/2/A, 13/K, and from these lands, an area of 8 Hectors 53 Ares from the area of 8 Hectors 53 Ares, an area of 15 Acres was allegedly sold for above price. 2 Criminal Application No.528/2011 2. It is informed and primarily established by the documents that the subsequent sale deed dated 17.5.2010 executed by power-of-attorney on behalf of Kazi A. Tasleem reflects present applicant Haji Abdul Rasheed as a witness. However, does not reflect as a consenting party. 3. The complainant apparently has not filed a suit for specific performance of contract as he felt that he has been cheated/ duped by the accused/ applicant. Taking these aspects into consideration, the bone of contention that the sale deed was fraudulently executed, it was a bogus document at this stage having been annulled by virtue of statement of Registrar and the Information placed even to the complainant and to the accused/ applicant, consequently, the sale deed to which doubts are raised in the affidavit-in-reply by the complainant are of no consequence. Indeed the contentions in paras 8 and 9 of the affidavit-in-reply are contrary to the record. Be that as it may, the fact remains, by virtue of agreement of sale referred above, the accused/ applicant has received huge amount and primarily sale deed concerning part of the property is executed, for which he has signed as a witness No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the accused/ applicant has disputed of receiving any amount as earnest from the complainant. Prima facie I do not find substance in it as the document of 3 Criminal Application No.528/2011 agreement of sale rebels. Hence order : O R D E R (i) The accused/ applicant Haji Abdul Rasheed s/o Haji Mohammed Hussain Kandhari be released on executing P.R. bond and surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). (ii) The accused/ applicant shall attend the investigator on every Sunday between 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. till filing charge sheet. He shall not influence the witnesses. (iii)The accused/ applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five Lakhs) before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, at Nanded in Application No. 1026/2010, which has been rejected on 31.1.2011, within a month from today. Failure to deposit to suffer cancellation of protection. After deposit, the learned Sessions Judge will invest the amount in a nationalised Bank. The amount shall be ultimately received by the party succeeding in the criminal case. 5. Application allowed. 6. The observations are prima facie in nature, should not be used in civil controversy between either of the parties. 7. Criminal Application No.5330/2010 is already posted to 24/3/2011. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE