1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3983 OF 2009 Anand S.o.Manoharrao Garud, Age-33 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Nandanwan Colony, Near Bhausingpura, Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.S.P.Tilve, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.468/2008, registered in Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offence punishable u/s. 447, 451,467, 468, 471, 420, 120 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. According to learned counsel appearing for the applicant, he is the person who is a witness to the Deed by which the principal accused Devanand has purchased the property of Vimal Jain and he has not identified the said Vimal Jain. As against this, according to learned APP appearing for the State that the lady who was present at the time of execution of the document was identified as Vimal Jain by the present applicant and the property of said Vimal Jain was sold to the principal accused Devanand. According to the learned APP that to find out to whom this applicant has identified as a lady who has sold the property of real Vimal Jail and for this purpose custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. 4. Considering these submissions across the bar, in the light of papers of remand, which are produced alongwith the application, particularly the remand report dated 31/10/2008 where there is reference about one Jawaharlal Jail, whose name is shown as the person who has identified the Vimal Jain. In the remand report, there is statement that in his interrogation, he has disclosed that the Vimal Jain was identified as the executor of the Deed at his instance. If it is so, then from this remand papers which were produced by the concerned police while seeking the remand of the said accused Pannalal find place that the lady Vimal Jain was identified by Pannalal and not by the present applicant. In the premise, case is made out to exercise the discretion to release the applicant accused on anticipatory bail as the principal accused as well as the remaining accused are already released either by this Court or by the trial 3 court. In the premise, the application deserves following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. In the event of arrest of applicant in CR No.468/08, registered in Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, he be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. This protection is granted for the period of 6 weeks. Within meantime, applicant may apply for regular bail if he so desire. 3. Applicant to give attendance to Kranti Chowk Police Station if required in writing by the concerned Investigation officer. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.3983-09