Cri. Appln. No. 3076/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3076 OF 2011 1. Suhas Ghevarchand Gadia, R/o. "Pushpanjali" near Andh School, Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Sow. Kiran Dilip Chopda, R/o. "Hastikrupa", Plot No. 5, Canpatinagar, Jalgaon. 3. Dilip Hastimal Jain (Chopda), R/o. "Hastikrupa", Plot No. 5, Canpatinagar, Jalgaon. 4. Kanhaiyalal Devichand Jain, R/o. 4, Mahavir Housing Society, Mohadi Road, Jalgaon. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for State/respondent. Mr. Vinod Patil, Advocate for original complainant. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 3rd August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for anticipatory bail in Cr. No. 15/11 registered in Kasoda Police Station for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 34 etc. of IPC. The crime is registered on the basis of Cri. Appln. No. 3076/11 2 direction given by a Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The papers of investigation were made available. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of complaint made by one Smt. Sangeeta Wagh. She has contended that present applicants had started development of land Gat No. 189/1B/1+2 situated at Bhambori (Khurd) and the name of the scheme was Yogeshwar Plot Scheme. She has contended that the proposed purchasers were expected to give monthly installments of Rs. 300/- for one plot and 35 installments were to be given by the each proposed purchaser. She has contended that the applicants agreed to sell plot admeasuring 116.25 Sq. Mtrs.. to her and such promise was given on 15.2.1992. She has contended that she paid all the 35 installments and the last installments were give on 3.5.1997. She has contended that her husband had also booked a plot and the plot No. 3 was sold to him. She has contended that promise was given to her that plot No. 3-A would be given to her, but the sale deed was not executed by the applicants under the pretext that land was not converted to NA purpose. She has contended that when she approached the applicant on 15.1.2011, they said that they had sold the plot to third party. So she felt that she was deceived. 3. The papers of investigation include zerox copies of some receipts. They start from March 1992 and last receipt is of 3.5.1997. It is the case of Cri. Appln. No. 3076/11 3 the complainant that she had handed over all the 35 receipts to the applicants, but they returned only few receipts and they refused to return the remaining 18 receipts. 4. The advocate of the applicants has produced a copy of N.A. order issued on 23.7.1992 in respect of this property. He has produced a copy of sale deed executed in favour of the husband of the complainant and some other persons in the year 1995 to show that everybody knew that land was converted to N.A. purpose prior to 1995. He has produced a sale deed of the year 2001 and on that basis he submitted that this plot was sold to Ravindra Nawal, but his name is not yet entered in the revenue record and so, the complainant must be feeling that one more plot may be available. 5. For the purpose of proper investigation query was made and APP was asked to say something about the persons who allegedly gave receipts, signed the receipts. It was submitted that all the applicants must have signed on different receipts and some employees must have signed on the receipts. There is no reply given by the original complainant, as to why civil suit was not filed after 1997 for about 14 years, if the plot was available and the applicants were not ready to sell it. The advocate of the applicants submitted that his client are not admitting signatures appearing on the so called receipts which are with Cri. Appln. No. 3076/11 4 the complainant and the applicants are ready to give specimen handwriting and signatures. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicants, subject to some conditions. 6. So the application is allowed. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is confirmed, subject to conditions that all the applicants are to appear before the Investigating Officer on 7.8.2011 for giving specimen hand writing and signatures. They are also to produce receipt books of the relevant period i.e. the period of which the receipts are available with the complainant. They are to co-operate the investigating agency. They are to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. If the signatures of the applicants tally with the signatures appearing on the receipts which are available with the complainant, the complainant will be at liberty to move the application for cancellation of bail. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln3076.11