1 APPLN 3633 OF 10.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3633 OF 2010. Shyam Sunder Radheshyam Agarwal .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.M. Sarogi, for the Applicant. Mrs S.D.Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Rajesh Sharma i/b Rajesh Sharma & Association for the complainant. Mr. R.KI. Dhamane , PSI, Mira, Road, Police station CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 30th August, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicant is alleged to have been involved in offences punishable u/s 465, 467, 473 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of following facts. 2. The applicant and the complainant Rohidas Patil were in the same business of construction activities. On 11th October, 2004, a release deed was executed by Rohidas Patil. On 7th October,2006 a Power of Attorney was executed by the complainant in favour of the applicant. It is the complainant’s case that some pages of the Power of Attorney were substituted and thus, the applicant 2 APPLN 3633 OF 10.sxw committed forgery. On 7th November, 2006, applicant sold his rights in the property to Leena Housing and Leena Housing in turn sold it to Laxmi Vishnu Enterprises on 30th December,2007. 7 to 8 buildings have up on the property. 3. The original owner of the land Mr.Todi had filed a suit on 23.ll.2008 in which the complainant is added as a defendant. On 22.6.2010, the complainant filed complaint alleging forgery. The applicant was arrested by the police on 26.6.2010, but instead of being sent to lock up, has been sent to Hospital and since then he is in the hospital. The release deed has been handed over to the police. According to learned counsel for the applicant, all the other documents have been handed over to the subsequent purchasers and therefore, they are not in possession of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that 7 to 8 buildings could not have come up overnight and if the complainant was vigilant, he could have filed complaint about the forgery earlier. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant states that the investigating Officer should be given some opportunity to investigate into the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that investigation in this case has been stayed on a petition filed by the applicant and therefore, there is no prospect of investigation being commenced now. He further submits that since it is more 3 APPLN 3633 OF 10.sxw than l5 days since the arrest of the applicant, there is no question of the applicant being remanded to Police custody and that if the Investigating Officer, calls the applicant for interrogation, he would make himself available for interrogation. Considering all this, application is allowed on the following conditions. ORDER I) The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. II) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the learned Magistrate. III) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer on a 24 hours notice between 10.00 am to 5.00 pm on any working day only on the orders staying investigation being vacated. IV) The applicant shall attend the police station concerned on every Sunday between 10.00 am to l.00 pm till the investigation is over. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)