18crn2868-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2868 OF 2010 1. Sanjay Dattatray Ghare, & 2. Ramdas Dattatray Ghare. .. Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred on behalf of both the applicants. 2. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.42 of 2010 registered with Vadgaon Maval Police Station, District - Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code. 18crn2868-10 2 3. The complaint was lodged by one Santosh Ganu. According to him certain immovable property belonging to his family was originally owned by his grandfather who died sometime in October, 1960. During his lifetime, said grandfather had not executed any sale deed or transferred the ownership of the land to anybody even so also was the case with respect to the father of the complainant. However the complainant became aware of the names of the present applicant No.2 entered in the 7/12 extract as various lands transferred in the name of the said applicant No.2 on the basis of five registered sale deeds. The said deeds were executed sometime in the year April, 2001 for various amounts of considerations. Apparently, the sale deeds show that the vendor is the grandfather of the complainant who died much earlier in October, 1960. Noticing such fraud and fabrication of documents, complaint was lodged before the concerned Police Station. 4. Apprehending arrest, the present applicants filed 18crn2868-10 3 present application. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant No.1 is not the purchaser of the said properties and he has only signed as witness in the sale deeds. Moreover it is submitted that the applicants were protected tenants of the said agricultural lands and infact were and are in possession of the said lands. According to the applicants it was all the design prepared and implemented by their Advocate with whom they had reposed confidence and paid for their tenancy matter. 5. The factual position emerged from the above is that the grandfather - original owner of the lands died in October, 1960 whereas five sale deeds were prepared in April, 2001 posing that the said grandfather had agreed and infact sold the said lands for certain considerations and gave his thumb impressions on the said sale deeds. In the said sale deeds definitely the present applicant No.2 is the predecessor beneficiary whereas present applicant No.1 is a attesting witness. 18crn2868-10 4 6. Under these circumstances, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to allow the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the present applicants. Hence order:- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2868 of 2010 for anticipatory bail stands rejected. [ii] It is made clear that in the event of filing of the chargesheet and trial before the appropriate Court, the trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made in the present order so far as merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)