1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Cri. Application No. 158 of 08 Motilal v. State of Maharashtra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr M.N. Upadhyay, Adv for applicant. Mr D.B. Patel, Advocate for State. Mr N.B. Bargat, Adv for intervener Coram : S.R. Dongaonkar, J Dated : 10th April 2008 Heard Mr Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant and Mr D.B. Patel, learned APP for State. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant acted merely as broker in sale transaction between land owner-accused Munnusingh and one Shri Khobragade and he did not know that the documents relating to property were fake. However, it has been pointed out by learned APP that present applicant introduced vendors of the property as real owners when, in fact, real owners were dead and relying on the version of applicant, complainant paid Rs. 4,50,000/- to accused Moti Harode and Rs. 4,75,000/- to accused Udaysingh Thakur as 2 earnest amount. On enquiry, complainant came to know that real land-owners are not at all concerned with the transaction in question. It has been observed by learned Additional District Judge while rejecting applicant's application that applicant is a habitual offender. Initially, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant. However, consideration at that time was prima facie different and it was granted on the representation by the applicant that he acted merely as a broker. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Hence, application is rejected. However, it is made clear that if the applicant moves for bail before the Trial Court, the same shall be decided at the earliest. Judge. H s joshi