1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 723 / 2010 (Dhammapal Janardhan Nakashe vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S S Shirsat, Adv.for applicant Mr. D.M.Kale, APP for Respondent-State ... CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J. DATED : May 25, 2010. 1. Heard. 2. The complainant has lodged the report on 5.9.2009 at Police Station, Patur. In the said report, he made a complaint that Pramod Sitaram Khilare in collusion with concerned Talathi got his name recorded as actual cultivator and this record shown in 7/12 was contrary to the original record and this act was done by the concerned Talathi and Pramod Khilare by way of forgery. 3. As no cognizance was taken by the police, the complainant filed a private complaint, in which direction 2 u/s 156(3) was issued on the basis of which Crime No.54/2010 at Police Station Patur was registered for offence punishable under sections 166, 167, 420, 464, 463, 466, 467, 468, 471, read with section 34 of thew Indian Penal Code. 4. The investigation is in progress. Perused the case diary and affidavit-in-reply. It is seen that the 7/12 extract purportedly issued by the applicant in the year in 2008-09 shows the name of cultivator as Antkala Vishwanath; while 7/12 extract of the same year issued on 7.6.2009 showed the name of Pramod Sitaram Khilare as cultivator. 5. It is seen that in order to demonstrate that the applicant is not involved in the offence, he has tendered an affidavit duly sworn before the Executive Magistrate denying that the forged 7/12 extract was issued by him. Learned Advocate Shri Shirsat has also placed reliance on applicant's statement recorded by the Police in which also, the applicant has denied having forged the 3 said document. 6. This being an application for anticipatory bail this Court will have to see whether prima facie contents of the complaint and the material collected so far by the police, involves the applicant as an accused. 7. Perusal of the case diary and narration of facts contained in the complaint, disclose that prima facie the applicant is involved in the commission of offence, and therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail in respect of the crime registered against him. 8. In view of this background, this Court is not satisfied that the applicant does not have a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE sahare