1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2087 of 2009 Suraj v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Anand Jaiswal, Adv for applicant Ms Sharda Wandile, APP and Mr A.A. Naik, Advocate to assist her for respondent. Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 30th July 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned APP for respondent-State. Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 85/2008 registered against Vishnu Radhelal Sharma, Smt Anita Vishnu Sharma, Atul Madewar, Dayaram Baseshankar and other unknown persons with Police Station, Tahsil, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that later on in the course of investigation, offences under Sections 464, 476, 468, 467 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code were added. 2. Property bearing Plot No. 6-A, Khasra No. 8, PH No. 39 admeasuring 371.33 square meters bearing House No. 1062 located in Ward No. 14, Babhulkheda, Nagpur was originally 2 owned and possessed by accused Dayaram Baseshankar. Said Dayaram had executed Power of Attorney in favour of another accused Atul Madewar on 30th March 2007. Said Atul Madewar in his capacity as Power of Attorney Holder executed an agreement for sale dated 12th July 2009 in favour of accused Vishnu and Anita Sharma . In pursuance to the agreement for sale, Atul Madewar executed sale deed on 22nd August 2007 in favour of Vishnu and Anita Sharma for a total consideration of Rs. 52,20,000/- . It, however, transpired that Dayaram Baseshankar, original ower of the property, sold the property on 17th July 2007 to one Kavita Sapkale for a consideration of Rs. 14 lacs. It further appears that prior to execution of sale deed in favour of Kavita Sapkale, accused Dayaram had addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar for cancellation of Power of Attorney given by him in favour of Atul Madewar. According to the complainant, on the basis of Power of Attorney executed in favour of Atul Madewar and on the basis of consequent sale deed dated 22nd August 2008, complainant-Finance Company granted loan of Rs. 38 lacs in favour of accused Vishnu and Anita Sharma. According to complainant, all the accused colluding with each other, have duped the complainant Finance Company. Property which was shown as sold by accused Dayaram Baseshankar to Kavita Sapkale on 17th July 2007, was again sold to accused Vishnu and Anita on 22nd August 2007. It is alleged that present applicant is also a beneficiary and is one of the parties to the fraud, cheating, coercion and 3 misrepresentation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is absolutely innocent and he has been targeted unnecessarily. He submits that in fact, original owner Dayaram had executed an agreement to sell in favour of applicant and his wife Sonali on 4th March 2006 and out of total consideration of Rs. 40 lacs, said Dayaram had received Rs. 20 lacs in cash and Rs. 11,000/- by way of cheque drawn on Indusind Bank. He submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not at all necessary and he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. As against this, Ms S. Wandile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is in progress. She points out that applicant is a habitual offender, he having been involved in six offences registered at various Police Stations. She further submits that alleged agreement to sell dated 4th March 2006 obtained by applicant and his wife is revealed to be a fabricated document. She prayed for rejection of application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that during the course of investigation the investigating agency has collected statement of bank accounts of applicant which indicates involvement of applicant in crime. It has also come to the knowledge of investigaging agency that alleged notarised agreement to sell dated 4th March 2006 obtained by applicant and his wife is a fabricated and fraudulant document. Name of the applicant was disclosed during the course of investigation in respect of sale deed in the name of Vishnu and 4 Anita Sharma. Prima facie, it appears that applicant was also instrumental when sale deed executed by and between Dayaram Baseshankar and Vishnu/Anita Sharma. Wife of the applicant appears to have received a sum of Rs. 22,50,600/- from the account of accused Atul on 29.8.2007. Present applicant appears to have deposited a sum of Rs. 15,19,000/- from time to time in his account with Indusind Bank for the period from 11.10.2007 to 3.10.2008. Investigating agency has recorded statement of one Atul Kalpande, employee of present applicant, who has also withdrawn Rs. 5 lacs from the account of accused Atul Madewar. Moreover, it is revealed that the applicant had paid stamp duty of Rs. 2,87,1000/-. The circumstances revealed prima facie are convincing enough to allow investigating agency free-hand in the investigation into serious accusations to reach a logical conclusion, particularly, considering the fact that application for grant of anticipatory bail moved by co-accused Atul,Anita and Vishnu was rejected by this Court by a detailed and reasoned order in the light of gravity of the offences revealed in the course of investigation. Although the name of present applicant did not figure in the FIR, it was disclosed during the course of investigation. 6. For the above reasons, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of applicant. Application is hereby rejected. Interim bail granted to the applicant stands cancelled. Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage prays for protection on the ground that interim bail was granted in favour 5 of applicant. In my opinion, there can be no protection from arrest. Suspect is bound to be arrested by investigating officer concerned in exercise of statutory right of police to arrest and investigate by arresting suspect concerned. Regular bail application, if any, can be decided on merits. Hence, prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is rejected. Judge. Hsj