1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.677 OF 2008 1.Smt.Kamala Raghunath Kankani and Others .. Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel with M.S.Mohite i/b N.V.Sawant for the applicants. Ms.S.D.Khot for the original complainant. Mrs.P.P.Shine A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned senior counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Ms.Khot, learned counsel for the complainant, who has been appearing in the present case for the complainant right from inception, submits that she has instructions not to appear in this matter any further and that she may be discharged. Her prayer is 2 2 2 granted. 3. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.12 of 2008 of D.N.Nagar police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicants and one another for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 465, 469, 471, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 4. The complainant - Rachana Kankani is a daughter-in-law of applicant no.1. Applicant No.2 is a wife of her brother-in-law, whereas applicant no.3 is her sister-in-law. Her husband - Lalitprasadji Kankani died on 11.7.2006 in bomb blast. After the death of the complainant’s husband, she continued to stay with applicant no.1 for sometime, and in July, 2007, she left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents in Rajasthan. On 14.8.2007 she addressed a letter to the present applicants making certain allegations against them of misappropriation of her husband’s property. That letter was replied by the applicants. Then the complainant on 10th January, 2008 lodged a complaint with D.N. Nagar police station. On the basis of the complaint/FIR the instant crime came to be registered against the applicants and one another. The basic 3 3 3 allegations against the applicants are that after the death of the complainant’s husband, the applicants fraudulently obtained her signatures on certain documents for transferring fixed deposits in their name, and despite repeated demands they did not give her the fixed deposit receipts standing in the name of her husband. It is further alleged that all the accused deprived the complainant of her legitimate share in the property and started ill treating her, which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. It is against this backdrop, I have heard, not only today but on 2-3 earlier occasions, the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant. It appears, at one point of time this court had appointed a mediator. However, settlement did not materialise. This application for anticipatory bail is pending since March, 2008. From the roznama it appears that several attempts were made to settle the dispute between the complainant and the applicants. 5. Mr.Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants, even now are ready to transfer certain properties in the name of complainant and her son, and they are also ready to hand them over to the complainant, if she so desires. He further submits that the applicants have no objection even if 4 4 4 the right of the complainant is kept intact to make further claim in the properties, if she feels that she is entitled for more than what has been offered to her. His statements are accepted. The properties which the applicants are ready to transfer in the name of the complainant and her son - Yash are as follows: a) Flat No.52-A in Shivam Apartment Rs.50,00,000/- to be transferred in the name of Rachana and Yash for their use and occupation OR In the alternate Rs.50,00,000/- being value of the flat to be given to Rachana and Yash. b) Fixed Deposit of Rs.53,98,000/- Rs.53,98,000/- in I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Andheri, presently in the name of Kamla Devi and Sandeep Kankani. The Applicant is willing to give up her 1/3rd share in favour of Yash. Thus the entire amount of Rs.53,98,000/- to be given to the Rachana and Yash. c) The Applicant is willing to give Rs. 3,44,000/- the value of jewellery of Rs.3,44,000/- disclosed in the balance sheet of Late Lalit Kankani to Rachana in Cash. d) An amount of Rs.1,25,15,325/- is Rs.83,43,550/- lying in various SBI Saving Bonds in which the Applicant has 1/3rd share. The Applicant is willing that Bonds worth Rs.83,43,550/- be transferred to Rachana and Yash after deducting her 1/3rd share to be paid to her. e) The Applicant has no objection Rs.18,00,000/- for giving the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- invested in 8% SBI Saving Bonds 2003 to Rachana and 5 5 5 Yash. f) Property worth Rs.51,18,587/- is Rs.34,12,392/- subject matter of Testamentary Petition No.54/2007 in the Bombay High Court. The applicant has a 1/3rd share in all these properties. The applicant is willing to give to Rachana and Yash an amount of Rs.34,12,392/- as their share in the said property. g) The Applicant has no objection to Rs. 8,00,000/- handover an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- lying in PPF Account No.714466 to Rachana. g) An amount of Rs.25,60,600/- is Rs.25,60,600/- lying in A/C. No.1180721023 of Central Bank of India, Cotton Exchange Branch. The applicant is willing that the entire amount to be given to Yash and Rachana. Total Rs.2,76,58,542/- 6. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the offer made by the applicants, as aforementioned, I am inclined to grant this application for anticipatory bail hence the following order: . In the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the applicants are directed to report to the concerned 6 6 6 police station on every alternate Saturday between 10 am and 11 am for a period of two months from today and thereafter as and when required. . It is made clear that while passing this order I have not decided the rights of the parties. It is always open to the complainant and her son to take possession of the properties, which the applicants are ready to transfer and also to approach the appropriate court seeking further share, if any, in the properties left by her husband and which are in possession of the applicants. It is also open to the applicants to transfer the properties as aforestated in the name of the complainant and her son and for which they need not wait for orders of the court. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . With these observations the application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)