1 BA-1433.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1433 OF 2011 {For Bail} Laxman Sahadu Lilke .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri R.D. Deshmukh for the Applicant. Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 P.C: This is an application for bail by a person who had neither identified the vendor before the Sub-Registrar nor had purchased the property or received any benefits under the sale. The learned APP states that the I.O. is not present. He, however, states that part of the consideration was eventually taken by the applicant by bringing a dummy owner and made the dummy owner sell the property to some purchasers. The dummy owner is not someone who posed to a different person. Baba Kausaldar himself had executed the sale deed. He had not represented himself to be Kauselendra Das who 2 BA-1433.11 is the complainant. Therefore, I do not understand as to what the learned APP exactly wants to convey by the applicant's bringing a dummy owner. Since the applicant is neither the purchaser nor the seller nor the person who identified purchaser or seller before the Sub- Registrar, his being in jail pending investigation may not be necessary, since one Thete, who had identified the vendor, has been admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the order dated 8-8-2011 passed on Criminal Application No.920 of 2011. In view of this, the applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.I-76 of 2011 of Dindori Police Station, District Nasik on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs. 15,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall report before the I.O. as and when required. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)