1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.880 OF 2011 Bhimesh Narendra Mehta .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.880 OF 2011 Dr.Akalpita Shrinivas Paranjpe .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Respondent - State Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b. M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates, for the Intervener CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a person, who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R.No.79 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Panvel Taluka Police Station. The applicant was holder of Power of Attorney executed by Padmakar in applicant's favour on 14th October, 2009. Padmakar himself held Power of Attorney of owners executed and registered on 23rd November, 2007, and 14th December, 2007. On the basis of Power of Attorney, the applicant transferred the property in his own name by sale deed dated 22nd June, 2010. Applicant in turn entered into a registered conveyance on 3rd December, 2010 in favour of Agnihotris. Intervener had filed a suit in respect of the said property in December, 2009 in which by an order dated 4th December, 2009 the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The applicant was, in 3 fact, not a party to this suit at that time. On 1st February, 2010, the intervenor claims to have registered notice of lis pendens before registering authority. On 29th September, 2010 the order directing parties to maintain status- quo was confirmed. On 4th December, 2010 the suit summons was served on Padmakar. In November, 2010, the applicant was added as a party to the suit. 3. The order dated 21st October, 2011 passed by this Court shows that it was necessary for the investigating agency to find out as to whether the original owners had, in fact, executed the Power of Attorney in favour of different persons (notably Padmakar) or not, and whether the application before the SDO for permission of sale was made by the original owners or by the applicant himself in the name of those persons. The learned APP upon instructions from the investigating officer 4 answers both these questions in the affirmative. The application before SDO was made by the applicant. The learned counsel for the intervener states that while making an application before SDO, the applicant and Padmakar had filed an affidavit falsely stating that no suit was pending. This affidavit is dated 29th January, 2010. Therefore, unless it is shown that on that date the applicant had knowledge of the suit, it cannot be said that the applicant had filed a false affidavit. 4. The learned APP, upon instructions from the investigating officer, states that all that the investigating officer wants now is production of the original Power of Attorney. The learned counsel for the applicant states that on next Monday i.e. 5th December, 2011 his client would produce the Power of Attorney before the investigating officer at 11:00 a.m.. In view of this, applicant's presence in custody 5 is not found to be necessary by the investigating officer. In view of this, in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/- on the following conditions. (i) The applicant shall report at the Panvel Taluka Police Station on 1st December, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer. (ii) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. . The order will remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2011 (SC) 6 312(Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra And Ors.). 5. Criminal Application No.880 of 2011 stands disposed of. In view of disposal of Criminal Application No.880 of 2011, Criminal Application No.648 of 2011 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.- (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)