(1) CRI.APP. 3685.2010+3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3685 OF 2010 Nagnath S/o Narayanrao Dange Age : 59 years, Occu.: Pensioner, R/o Kallamb, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station, Kallamb, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor High Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3686 OF 2010 1. Bhajandas S/o Amrutrao Dhongde Age : 52 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Wagholi (Gour), Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad 2. Shahuraj S/o Amrutrao Dongade Age : 52 years Occu.: Agri., R/o. Wagholi (Gour), Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad 3. Nagorao S/o Amrutrao Dhongde Age : 52 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Wagholi (Gour), Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station, Kallamb, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor High Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent (2) CRI.APP. 3685.2010+3 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3711 OF 2010 Babruwan S/o Ambadas Devkar, Age : 55 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o. Tahsil Colony, Kallamb, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station, Kallamb, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor High Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3714 OF 2010 Gokul S/o Vishwambhar Kapase Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Gourgaon, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor High Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicants (In Criminal Application no. 3685 of 2010 and 3686 of 2010) Mr. G.V. Patil, Advocate for the applicant (In Criminal Application no. 3711 of 2010) Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the applicant (In Criminal Application no. 3714 of 2010) Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent-State ... (3) CRI.APP. 3685.2010+3 CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. These are Applications filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants, learned APP and also perused the investigation papers. 3. It appears that FIR is registered on basis of complaint filed by Ramratan Dhongde. He filed on application seeking investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint Application to the Police and as such the FIR came to be registered for offences under section 166, 167, 465, 466, 467, 471, 420, 197, 198 and 209 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint is filed against 10 accused persons. It appears that applicant Nagnath was working as Circle Revenue Inspector at the (4) CRI.APP. 3685.2010+3 relevant time when the mutation entry was recorded in name of purchasers of the land bearing survey no. 9. According to the complainant-Ramratan, he had purchased the said land after verification that it was not declared to anyone under provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The complainant purchased the land by virtue of sale deed dated 26.9.2003 from one Rajshree Umashankar Sontakke. It appears that originally the land was owned by one Rani Krishnabai. The mutation entry came to be recorded on basis of sale deed purportedly executed by the legal representatives of deceased tenant by name Amrutrao. Whether the tenancy certificate was issued by the competent authority or that it was forged one, is a disputed question. 4. The complainant did not file any complaint against the applicants at the Police Station in the past. The FIR does not show that he had filed such complaint before the Police but no cognizance was taken and therefore he was constrained to file such private complaint before the Chief Judicial (5) CRI.APP. 3685.2010+3 Magistrate, Osmanabad. It appears that he directly filed the complaint application which came to be referred for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Considering the fact that there is a civil dispute about declaration of statutory ownership in favour of tenant by name Amrutrao Dhongde, it is difficult to prima facie infer that the applicants have committed the alleged offences. In any case, their arrest is not eminent and is not so much so required for effective investigation. 6. Considering the reasons stated above, the Applications are allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) each with one solvent surety bond each before the Arresting Officer and on condition that they shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10.00 am. to 2.00 pm. for four consecutive Sundays or till filing of the report/charge-sheet, (6) CRI.APP. 3685.2010+3 whichever is earlier, and shall co-operate with the Investigation Officer. Applications are disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp