{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4034 OF 2010 Deepak Ashok Bhalshankar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.B.Rajebhosale, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4120 OF 2010 Sandip Zumberrao Jagtap APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. M.P.Gude, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 28th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By these two applications, the applicants seek pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime No.190/2010 registered with Shivajinagar police station Beed for an offence punishable u/s 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that interim protection was granted in favour of the applicants by this Court. {2} 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the documents. As both the applications arise out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by this common order. 4. A complaint is lodged by one Sayyad Rubabsaheb alleging that the property in survey No.185/2 situated at Beed, belonging to her was sold by someone under a registered sale deed and to the said transaction the applicants were the witnesses. It is further alleged that the said transaction has been executed by somebody else by impersonating to be her. Learned counsel for the applicants contend that the role alleged against the applicants is that they are only the witnesses to the said transaction and hence are not involved in the said offence. If the applicants are the witnesses on behalf of the fraudulent seller, who have identified that she was the person who owns the property, then they have to face the music. Apart from it on the strength of the said sale deed, revenue entries are also changed. Thus, this is a clear case of fraudulent transaction of immovable property. Therefore, to unearth the truth behind the transaction, custodial interrogation of the applicant is must. In the premise, both the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Interim protection stands vacated. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln4034-10