1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.126 OF 2011 Farhan Abdul Sattar Salat ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Amin Solkar , adv. For the Applicant. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP, who is assisted by an advocate for the original complainant. Applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime no.283 of 2010 registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 448, 420 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2 On perusal of the F.I.R. lodged by Sale Mohammed Abdul Sattar, who is cousin of the father of the present applicant, it appears that complainant used to reside in South Africa and he wanted to purchase some property in Bombay and , therefore, he paid an amount of Rs.11 lac to the father of the present applicant i.e. Accused no.1 Abdul Sattar Salat for purchase of the house. According to him, accused no.1 Abdul Sattar informed him on telephone that he had purchased house in 2 his name. Later on, in January, 2006, he had permitted accused no.1 and his family members to reside in the said house temporarily as house of the accused persons was not in-habitable condition because of heavy rains. In August, 2010 complainant came to India and he found that accused no.1 and his family members were residing in the same house. When the complainant asked him as to why and how he was residing in that house, the accused no.1 claimed that he himself was the owner of the house and he had all the documents. It was contended that the accused no.1, his wife and both the sons including the present applicant had prepared false and bogus documents and they had also used the documents for obtaining ration card, electricity meter, passport, etc. and thus, they had committed serious offence. 3 The trial Court appears to have rejected the application merely because the offence under Section 467 is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment, which may extend to 10 years. 4 On perusal of the F.I.R. and the contents therein, it appears that it is civil dispute between the two parties. If claim of the complainant is true that the accused persons were allowed to occupy the premises for some time and possibly they did not vacate the same 3 afterwards, then the complainant could file suit for recovery of the possession. According to the accused no.1, he is owner of the property and if he had falsely got sale deed executed in his name by the money given by the complainant still the complainant has remedy by way of filing suit for declaration of title and possession and the Civil Court may examine as to whether accused no.1 or his family members had misused the trust reposed in them. In any case, it is not fit case where the accused should be required to continue in jail. 5 Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing PR of Rs.10,000/- with surety in the like amount. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)