- 1 - 5655 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5655 OF 2010 Ms.Dimple D/o Bimal Singh .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Mr.Kenneth Cardozo 3.Mrs Sunita Cardozo .. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi for Applicant Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State Mr.Satish Borulkar i.b Mr.S.M.Patil for Respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 24 th August 2011 P.C. 1. This is an Application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Court in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Applicant, who is an Advocate, claims to have purchased a flat No.B-102 of Vesava Mangela Macchimar Samaj Sarvodaya CHS Ltd from original allotee Ramchandra Soma Raut. According to her Accused nos. 2 and 3 had got false and bogus - 2 - 5655 documents executed in their favour from one Muktabai Raut in respect of said flat and they have forcibly taken possession of the same. It appears that Muktabai was also entitled to have a flat and the society was to issue a certificate in her favour in respect of flat No.B-104. However, on the basis of the certificate in her favour, she sold flat No.B-102 to the Accused persons. According to the Applicant, that certificate is a forged document. Copy of the Application filed by the Respondents for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court is not produced by the Applicant before this Court. In the order passed by the Sessions Court granting anticipatory bail it is noticed that the Applicant claims to have purchased the said flat from Varindra Singh Bharara, while in the later part reference is to the certificate in favour of Muktabai. Anyhow copy of the Sale Deed dated 1.4.2010 shows that Muktabai had executed the said Sale Deed of flat No.B-102 in favour of Respondent No.2 Kenneth - 3 - 5655 Cardozo and put him in possession. The Sale Deed in favour of the Applicant allegedly executed by Ramchandra Raut is later in point of time as it was executed on 11.5.2010. 2. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to be purely a civil dispute. Even if Muktabai had secured a forged certificate the Respondents who are purchasers for valuable consideration may not be party to such conspiracy. In any circumstance, it is not case where custodial interrogation of the Respondents would be necessary for investigation of the case nor they need to be detained in custody pending criminal case. 3. Therefore, Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail stand rejected. J.H.BHATIA, J - 4 - 5655