1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1990 OF 2010 Anil S/o.Sarjerao Pawal, Age-33 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Dongaon, Tq.Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The District Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Asha Avinash Badve, Age-73 years, Occu-Doctor, R/o.Badve Hospital, Chitale Road, Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for State Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent no.3. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2181 OF 2010 Nilesh S/o.Pandit Supekar, Age-25 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Burudgaon, Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Deputy Superintendent of 2 Police, Ahmednagar, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar 3. Asha Avinash Badve, Age-73 years, Occu-Doctor, R/o.Badve Hospital, Chitale Road, Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS Mr.R.N.Dhorde h/f. Mr.S.B.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for State Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent no.3. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 09/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. As both these anticipatory bail applications are arises out of the same Crime No.147/2010, registered in Tophkhana Police Station of Dist. Ahmednagar, these applications to be disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard learned counsels for respective applicants, learned APP for State and learned Counsel for respondent no.3/original complainant in both these applications. 3. Perusal of the documents shows that the open plot bearing no. 199/3, situated at Savedi, Ahmednagar is originally owned by 3 respondent no.3. Dr.Asha Badve. It appears that one person by name Rajendra Baban R/o.Kalyan Road, Ahmednagar has got executed registered power of attorney in his favour to deal with the transactions of this open plot belongs to respondent no.3. It appears that vide sale deed dated 12/03/2010, this property was purchased by the applicant in Cri.Appl.No. 2181/2010, alongwith one Kapil Sudke from the said power of attorney holder for the consideration in the sum of Rs.38,68,000/-. The applicant in Cri.Appl.No. 1990/2010 is the witness to the sale deed. It appears from the complaint lodged by 3rd respondent with Tophkhana Police station that somewhere in the month of April/May 2010, as she verified the revenue record, she came to know that the application was moved by the applicant in Cri.Appl. No.2181/2010 to enter his name in the revenue record as a owner with one Kapil Sudke. Hence, she realised that something might have wrong with the open plot bearing no. 199/3, Savedi, Ahmednagar, then she verified the entire revenue record and then came to know about the transaction of the sale deed in favour of applicant in application no.2181/2010 and one Kapil Sudke on the basis of alleged registered power of attorney, executed in favour of Rajendra Baban Ghuge. According to her, the 4 photograph which was affixed on the said power of attorney was not of her photograph nor she has signed the power of attorney deed which was notarized before the practicing lawyer, neither she has executed that document and hence lodged the complaint against said power of attorney holder, the witnesses to that power of attorney, purchasers who have purchased the property under sale deed dated 12/03/2010, witnesses to that document, the revenue authorities before whom the document was placed for mutation entries as well as the officers in the office of Sub-Registrar where the document was registered. As the applicant in second application went at site to take the possession, she came to know that on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 12/03/2010, the land was allegedly alienated in favour of that applicant and one Kapil Sudke. After these applicants came to know about the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, initially they moved the Sessions court, Ahmednagar for their release, and after their attempts became futile, they are before this Court. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is contended on behalf of applicant in Cri.Appl.No.2181/2010 that the applicant is bonafide purchaser and have parted with huge amount. 5 Allegedly he has entered into the transaction of sale on the basis of power of attorney executed in favour of said Rajendra Ghuge by respondent no.3 According to him, he had no occasion to verify the genuineness of the power of attorney executed in favour of Rajendra Ghuge, on the basis of which he has entered into the transaction. According to learned counsel appearing for the applicant in the first application, his client is the witness to the alleged sale deed and not a witness to the power of attorney deed where he has identified the lady in the photograph is the same to whom he has identified as respondent no.3. According to learned APP, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary as with the connivance of other accused, who are arrayed in this offence, they have entered into this transaction. 5. Considering these rival submissions across the bar, it can not be disputed that the respondent no.3 is the landlady of open plot no. 199/3 situated at Savedi. This dispute arose on the basis of alleged power of attorney executed in favour of Rajendra Baban, who is arrested and is in custody. Apparently, so far as applicant in both these applications are concerned, are not party to the power of 6 attorney or the witnesses to the alleged power of attorney deed which is a a fake document, neither the applicant in Cri.Appl.No.2181/2010 will get any lawful title to the property purchased under that sale deed unless get established from the competent civil court, having jurisdiction, and if it is so, case is made out to enlarge both the applicants on anticipatory bail, hence order - O R D E R 1. Both the applications are hereby allowed. 2. Interim relief, earlier granted, in both these applications stand confirmed till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Within meantime, both the applicants to attend Tophkhana Police Station on written intimation by the concerned Investigation Officer, whenever required. 4. It is hereby made clear that as the title of Plot No.199/3, situated at Savedi is under dispute, the applicant in Cri.Appl.No. 2181/2010 is prohibited to take possession of this property, unless he establish his title from the competent civil court, and also prohibited to disturb the lawful possession of respondent no.3 in respect of Plot No.199/3, situated at Savedi, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Both these applications stand disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.1990-10