1 appln3107-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3107 OF 2010 Shubhash Anant Sinare. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.K.S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.70 of 2010 registered with Panvel Taluka police station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 460, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The original complainant is resident of Canada since 2005. He has purchased certain immovable property at taluka 2 appln3107-10 Panvel sometime in the year 1998, 1999 and 2001. Apparently co-accused, one Rameshkumar Teswani, impersonated himself as the complainant and entered into transactions for sale of said immovable property to one Suresh Phadke. Said Suresh Phadke was introduced by the present applicant being agent in land transactions. Initially the said Teswani approached the applicant and made him aware regarding sale of the immovable property belonging to him. Allegedly while impersonating as complainant, said Teshwani had prepared pan card with his own photograph but in the name of the complainant. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that he signed on the agreement to sale which was earlier entered into between the person posing himself as complainant and Suresh Phadke for agreement to sale the immovable property. Apart from such signature as a witness, he has nothing to do much less identify the authentic owner of the property. 3 appln3107-10 4. It is argued by pointing out another document i.e. an agreement to sale entered into between one Rajesh Madhavi and the accused Teswani posing himself as owner of the property and posing himself as the complainant, present applicant had also signed as a witness and infact he is also witness to the receipt for the cash payment of Rs.5 lakh out of the total consideration of the immovable property worth Rs. 75 lakhs. Apparently, such agreement to sale and receipts were entered on 13th July, 2009. According to the investigation, during that period the complainant, real owner of the immovable property was not in India and was at Canada. Only after revealing such type of transaction subsequently entered into by the co-accused Teswani posing himself as complainant and Suresh Phadake, original complainant knew as he was made aware of such transactions when Suresh Phadake tried to enter his name in the record of rights. Knowing such impersonation and on his name somebody else i.e. co-accused Teswani selling his 4 appln3107-10 immovable property, he came down to India and lodged his FIR. Specifically in the said FIR name of the present applicant is also mentioned as one of the conspirators. Prima facie it appears from the import of the documents that there is some role played by the present applicant. This is more so when the present applicant is posing himself as agent dealing in the land transactions. Definitely it is not a matter in which the discretion of pre-arrest bail can be exercised by this Court and the matter is required to be investigated by the police having the benefit of custodial interrogation when the matter involves the property worth more than Rs.75 lakhs or so. Under these circumstances, there is nothing to allow the present application. Hence the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.3107 of 2010 for anticipatory bail is rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 11.apln3107-10