{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3267 OF 2010 Ramdas Pralhad Shakkarwar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. A.H.Kapadia, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State Mr. S.B.Jadhav h/f Mr.Gadegaonkar, for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20 th September 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.70/2010 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded. This is the second application filed by the applicant, as his previous application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2010. Thereafter, it appears that the applicant had moved the lower count, however could not succeed and hence he is before this Court over again. 2. Interim protection is granted to the applicant by this {2} Court vide order dated 13.09.2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP, who is assisted by learned counsel for original complainant. Also perused a report called by learned APP from the office of Sub Registrar, Class-II, Nanded. 4. Admittedly, the applicant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.96/2010 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded seeking perpetual injunction. The said suit is based on a sale deed executed in favour of the applicant by the original complainant and registered with the Sub Registrar, Nanded at serial No.7018. According to the complainant, there is variance in the description of property given in the said sale deed filed by the applicant before the civil court and hence he pointed out the said variance to the civil court. Thereafter, as there is variance in the original document, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and his son before the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Miscellaneous Application No.111/2010, on the basis of which an order directing the police to investigate the matter u/s 156 (3) was passed and consequently offence at Crime No.70/2010 came to be lodged. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with this offence. 5. In the order dated 19.07.2010 this Court has observed that two documents were produced before the Civil Court {3} demonstrating that apart from material change in the description of the property in the sale deed, an official seal is used by the applicant and on the basis of the said seal the document is prepared. It appears that the applicants have not only forged the document but also produced the same before the civil Court. 6. The present application is moved as certain facts were not brought on record in the earlier application. 7. The core question, which requires to be considered is as to whether the document produced by the applicant is his creation or the same was issued by the authorities with whom the same was lodged for registration. Learned APP brought the report and the report and states that the document in question was issued by the office of Sub Registrar. Considering the fact that the said document is supplied by the Sub-Registrar, no fault can be found with the applicant in submitting the same with the civil court. In this light of the matter, case is made out to exercise discretion vested in this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim order passed on 13.09.2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is, however, directed to attend the concerned police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer on written intimation. It is also made clear {4} that the above observations are prima facie and the lower courts need not be influenced with the same while dealing with suit or trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3267-10