1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2774 OF 2007 Mahendra Singh S/o. Parshram Singh ..Applicant V/s. Ashish Ramakant Damohe & ors ..Respondents Mr.Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh, Advocate, for applicant Mr.Rajesh Datar, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. Leave to appeal, is sought. It is the sorry state of affair that engagement ceremony between daughter of the complainant Madhuri and accused Ashish Ramakant Damohe couldnot reach its ultimate goal and since due to frustration of said marriage proposal, it is alleged that said Madhuri committed suicide by jumping from the terrace giving cause to F.I.R vide Crime Registration No.114 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 420 read 2 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ashish Ramakant Damohe and Shashi Ramakant Damohe. The accused were put under arrest by the concerned police. During the course of their bail application, the accused were directed to be released on bail on their furnishing sureties. The matter of controversy now starts from this stage as the complainant, father of victim on verification noticed that the sureties furnished for releasing accused No.1 Ashish and accused No.2 Shashi were false, fabricated and were without any verification. He took gadget by making an application before the learned Judge. Investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was directed and thereafter, charge sheet was filed by the concerned police. The learned Judge noticed that the documents produced before the Court vide surety form (Exh.63) or 7/12 extract does not stand in the name of Vitthal Bhoir and Gama Bhoir. However, in paragraph 11 of the Judgment it was recorded that PSI Bankar failed to seize required papers like bail papers, 7/12 extracts and also failed to record the statement of 3 the concerned persons whose statements are essential against the present accused and the alleged fake sureties. 3. On the application of the complainant for taking action under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, vide Exh.48 the learned Judge has allowed the application and issued summons to Vijay Nikunj and Nana Kamble. However, no cognizance and action is taken against them and the original accused came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 205, 209, 463, 471, 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code by Order dated 26th July,2006. The findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while acquitting the main accused, cannot be doubted as at the material time they were in custody. The sureties were arranged by others which could not be to the knowledge emerged to the accused and fake sureties and fake documents produced should have been attributed to the knowledge of the advocate who identified sureties. However, for the reasons best known to the 4 complainant there is no prosecution against the concerned Advocate or fictitious sureties. In the result, accused Ashish or accused Smt.Shashi cannot be said to be responsible for producing fake documents before the learned Judge for getting released on bail. The findings recorded in paragraph 11 of the Judgment in this view of the matter cannot be doubted. Hence, leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)