1 apln3439-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3439 OF 2010 Shri.Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Sandeep Paigude, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 09TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in the matter of C.R. No.165 of 2010 registered with Hinjewadi police station, Pune. 2. Initially a private complaint was lodged by the complainant alleged co-owner of certain immovable agricultural property. Such complaint was lodged sometime in June, 2010. The learned J.M.F.C. passed directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and on the strength of such 2 apln3439-10 directions, investigation was taken over by Hinjewadi police station and FIR was lodged against the present applicant along with co-accused. 3. Allegations against the other accused i.e. wife of the present applicant is that co-owner of the agricultural property executed development agreement and also general power of attorney in favour of her to develop the said agricultural property which is admeasuring 62 R for total consideration of Rs.46 lakhs. After obtaining such development rights, wife of the present applicant applied for N.A. permission. Considering that there was a requirement of consent by other co-owners of the property for giving no-objection for conversion of the agricultural property into non-agricultural use, a sort of consent letter was prepared and submitted to the office. It was registered before the Notary on 28th June, 2008 and on the strength of such consent letter, N.A. permission dated 2nd March,2009 was obtained. Later on, original complainant learnt regarding such obtaining of N.A. permission as some constructions were started on the 3 apln3439-10 property. On 26.5.2010, he filed an application for cancellation of such N.A. permission and in the month of June, 2010 filed private complaint before the concerned Magistrate for taking action against the said accused i.e. wife of the present applicant and other co-accused including the present applicant and other co-sharer of the said property and one agent working for the wife of the present applicant. According to the complainant, he suspect the role of the present applicant as to one of the accused and doing the entire job of development under the benami as on record such development work is given to the wife of the present applicant who is the proprietor of M/s.Lambodhar Developers. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the wife of the present applicant had already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. This was done for the reason that the co-sharers of the property, whose alleged consent was obtained, mentioned in their statements 4 apln3439-10 recorded by the police that they do not suspect any role of the said proprietor of M/s. Lambodhar Developers. Infact obtaining of the NA permission for development of the immovable property is for the benefit of wife of the applicant as her name is appearing in all the documents as the proprietor of M/s. Lambodhar Developers. Reportedly, said order of granting anticipatory bail to the wife of the present applicant is not challenged either by the original complainant or by the State. 5. So far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, there is nothing concrete appearing on record as to he himself prepared any fabricated document. Still that is the aspect for the investigation, however, for that purpose the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not warranted. 6. Moreover during the arguments, learned APP for the State submitted that the notary who is also the accused No.4 in the private complaint lodged before the J.M.F.C., is 5 apln3439-10 presently not available for interrogation though she is reportedly a practicing Advocate and Notary appointed by the State of Maharashtra. It is further submitted that the original notary register could not be seized. However, the police papers do contain the xerox copy of the relevant paper of the notary register showing the entry of the alleged consent letter at Sr.No.2272. Apparently the said document was brought by the present complainant for at least his name is mentioned as the person who brought the said consent letter and some signature is appearing in the column "party's signature". It is significant to note that nowhere in the alleged consent letter said original complainant Sunil Dagade had given his consent for obtaining of NA permission. However, still his name is appearing with some signature in the copy of the notary register. This is the aspect which is required to be specifically dealt with by the investigating agency but it is definitely and mainly concerning said accused No.4 Notary. 7. All the same, considering the rival submissions, present application can be allowed on imposing certain 6 apln3439-10 conditions as to attendance to the concerned investigating agency. Hence, the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.3439 of 2010 for anticipatory bail is allowed and accordingly disposed of. [ii] In the event of arrest of the applicant - Shri.Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde in C.R. No.165 of 2010 registered with Hinjewadi police station, Pune, he shall be released on bail on his executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount. [iii] In the event of arrest and availing the bail, as above, the applicant shall attend Hinjewadi police station on every Monday and Friday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till filing of the chargesheet. [iv] Present anticipatory bail will be effective till the completion of the investigation and thereafter the 7 apln3439-10 applicant shall apply for regular bail before the concerned Court. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 5.apln3439-10