1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1511 OF 2010 Limba s/o Narayan Patil ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 27th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.46/2010, registered at Nandurbar City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by Shriram Arun Modak on 19.3.2010, alleging that the applicant represented the complainant and his wife that he was owner of the several plots at Patonda and he was prepared to sell them. Accordingly, the applicant showed the lay out plan to the complainant and his wife and entered into an agreement of sale of Plot No.58, admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. The price of the said plot was negotiated from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.91,000/- and it was finalised at Rs.91,000/-. It is also alleged that, the applicant represented the complainant and his wife that, as per the extract No.8, he was the owner of the said plot. It is further alleged that, on believing the applicant’s words, the complainant arranged a loan of Rs.76,000/- from Co-operative Credit Society and asked the applicant to execute the sale deed of the said plot. However, it is recited in the said complaint that the applicant represented to complainant that the said property belonged to Grampanchayat and, therefore, execution of sale deed was not necessary and he was ready to execute Bechannama. It is also stated in the said complaint that the applicant assured him that he would get the resolution passed in the Grampanchayat after giving an application and he would enter the said plot No.58 in the name of complainant on the records of Grampanchayat. On believing the words of the applicant, the 3 complainant did not press for execution of sale deed and was prepared to get the Bechannama executed. Accordingly, the applicant executed the Bechannama in favour of the complainant and his wife on 16.12.2007 in respect of said plot No.58 after accepting the consideration amount of Rs.91,000/-. 4. It is further alleged that, thereafter on 2.1.2008, the applicant visited the house of the complainant and tendered the Grampanchayat extract No.8 of the said plot No.58 showing the deletion of the name of the applicant and entering into name of the complainant and his wife in the column of owner thereof and it bore the signature of Gramsevak and rubber stamp of Grampanchayat thereon. Accordingly, the said extract No.8 of Grampanchayat disclosed that said plot No.58 was transferred in the name of complainant and his wife. 5. However, it is alleged in the said complaint that on enquiry with Grampanchayat, the complainant noticed that there was no property or land in the name of applicant in Grampanchayat, Patonda, and plot No.58 did not belong to the applicant herein. It is also alleged that, extract No.8 of Grampanchayat register, which was given by the applicant, was found to be false and fabricated. Hence, the complainant asked the 4 applicant to return the amount of Rs.91,000/-. Thereupon, the applicant assured and promised to return the said amount. However, in spite of making repeated reminders from time to time, the applicant avoided to repay the said amount to the complainant. Ultimately, it is stated in the said complaint that, in the first week of January 2009, the applicant flatly refused to return the said amount to the complainant and the applicant obtained the copy of 7/12 extract from the Talathi, Patonda of the Plot No.58 and it was realised that the said property was in the name of Government on new tenure. 6. On the aforesaid background, the lerned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there is delay of about three years in lodging the complaint by the complainant since the alleged offence occurred in January 2007 and the present complaint came to be lodged in the year 2010 and the said delay itself creates suspicion in respect of the said complaint. The learned counsel for the applicant also urged that the applicant is prepared to give Bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/- and it is submitted that, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant and, therefore, requested that present application be allowed. 7. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application 5 vehemently and submitted that, the property in question belongs to the State and the applicant prepared the false and bogus documents including the bogus lay out and, therefore, investigation is required in that respect. It is also submitted that, extract No.8 of Grampanchayat was also bogus and signature of Talathi thereon was forged and, therefore, investigation in that respect is also necessary. It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that, during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded and the statement of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat apparently connects the applicant with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that, the alleged delay in filing the F.I.R. has been explained in the said complaint itself and even the said aspect can be considered at the time of trial and it is not necessary to consider the said aspect at this stage and, therefore, submitted that present application bears no substance and same be rejected. 8. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, at the outset, the alleged delay of three years in lodging the complaint has been already explained in the contents of the complaint itself, stating that the complainant demanded the amount of Rs.91,000/- from the applicant and applicant assured to return the said amount to the complainant and 6 in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant from time to time, the applicant avoided to make the payment of the said amount to the complainant, which consumed the period of three years and ultimately, when the applicant flatly refused to return the amount in first week of January 2009, the present complaint came to be lodged on 19/3/2010. Apart from that, the said aspect of delay can be considered at the time of trial and need not be gone into at this stage. 9. Besides that, apparently, the property in question i.e. plot No.58 belongs to the State Government and it also appears that, the applicant prepared the false and bogus lay out to show to the complainant and his wife and, therefore, the investigation in that respect is necessary. Moreover, it also appears that the applicant tendered extract No.8 of Grampanchayat to the complainant which was bogus and fabricated and it bears forged signature of Gramsavek apparently and, therefore also, the investigation in that respect is essential. 10. In the circumstances, considering the contents of complaint and other investigating papers, it is apparent that, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant nor possibility of maligning his reputation by filing the present complaint. Moreover, 7 considering the aforesaid aspects and considering that the huge amount of Rs.91,000/- is involved in the present crime, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. 11. Hence, having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that, present application deserves to be rejected. 12. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. 13. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri151110