1appln-2998-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2998 of 2010 Mrs Bharti Avinash Wadgaonkar .. Applicant. versus Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai and anr ... Respondents. ----- Mr Ashok Sarogi, i/by A.H.Nagi for the Applicant. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 16TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant – woman, for release on bail during the pendency of the matter of C.R. No.I - 108/ 2009 registered with Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai. 2. Reportedly, present applicant is arrested on 16.4.2009 by Nerul Police and remanded from time to time. Three bail applications were made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, 2appln-2998-10 they were rejected. There are other three co-accused, including her husband, by name Avinash Wadgaonkar. Admittedly, said Avinash had preferred Application No. 531/2010 before the another Bench (Shri D.G.Karnik,J) and bail order was passed on 23.2.2010. Shelter of the observations mentioned in the said order granting bail to the said co- accused, is taken on behalf of the present applicant. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the allegations against the present applicant and her husband co-accused are almost same in nature. Moreover, whatever material found as against the applicant is allegedly found during the search and seizure conducted at some office premises of the applicant and her husband. It is submitted that the status of the co-accused Avinash as “an Advocate” on the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa has been accepted by the another Bench vide observations made in paragraph No.4 of the said order dated 23.2.2010. 4. The allegations against the present applicant and the co- accused including her husband Avinash are that since long for many years there used to be notarization of various documents and deeds from the office of the applicant. Such notarization was being done by using various notarial stamps and using the names of other Advocates 3appln-2998-10 and Notaries who were validly authorized by the respective authorities to work as Advocates and Notaries. Inasmuch as 14 different notarial stmaps were seized from the office of the applicant and allegedly they were having different names. It appears that such type of practice, as to posing themselves as Advocates and Notaries by the present applicant and her husband, was going on for many years, probably since 2002 or so. The said fraud came to light when the first informant, Advocate and Notary, was informed by his well wisher that certain documents are being notarized using his name as “a Notary” and using certain “Notarized Stamps” showing his name and by forging his signatures. Allegedly, a Notarized document dated 16.1.2009 was shown to the said complainant, one Raghuveerchand Digpal, the Advocate by profession and permitted to act as Notary by the Central Government since the year 1997. On revealing such information, the complainant enquired in the matter and further found out that various such forged notarial documents were prepared. However, the registration numbers of such Notarial documents were not detailed in the Notary Register maintained by him and consequently, F.I.R. came to be lodged with Nerul Police Station on 19.3.2009. As mentioned above, the present applicant was arrested on 16.4.2009 whereas her 4appln-2998-10 husband co-accused was arrested on 20.5.2009. 5. During the arguments, the learned A.P.P.for the State brought to the notice of this Court the steps taken by the Investigating Agency, as to finding out truthfulness or otherwise of the Sanad issued by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in favour of the co-accused Avinash Wadgaonkar – husband of the present applicant. Attention of this Court is drawn towards letter dated 18.1.2010 addressed to the Secretary to the Bar Council of India, at New Delhi, by Police Sub- Inspector, T.R.Sawant of Nerul Police Station. Vide said letter, an information was sought, as to whether the alleged degree of LL.B obtained from ‘Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, (Prayag) Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh)’ in the year 2002 is recognized by Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolling the particular person as an Advocate. In fact, it is Vidhi Visharad Degree. It was allegedly given by ‘Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, (Prayag), Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh). It is also brought to the notice of this Court the letter, dated 7.11.2010, addressed by Section Officer of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi addressed to P.S.I. Nerul Police Station. In the said letter, it is mentioned that the University Grants Commission has no information about the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, (Prayag) Allahabad (U.P.)’. As per 5appln-2998-10 the inward Stamp on the said letter of Nerul Police Station, it was received by the Police on 13.1.2010. It appears that though on 13.1.2010 the concerned Investigating Agency was aware of such factual position so far as the authenticity or otherwise of the Advocate’s Degree of the co-accused, husband of the present applicant, apparently it was not brought to the knowledge of the Another Bench which was then seized of the matter and which allowed the bail of the co-accused by order dated 23.2.2010. 6. When this factual position was brought to the notice of the learned A.P.P. it is suggested that the Investigating Agency may take appropriate steps for cancellation of bail of the co-accused. 7. In view of the above situation and still considering that there is another similar case pending against the present applicant being C.R.No.144/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of I.P.C. registered with Kharghar, Police Station, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant bail to the present applicant during the pendency of the trial. 8. Needless to mention that it is open for the Investigating Agency or the State to take appropriate recourse for cancellation or otherwise of the bail granted to the co-accused. All the same, the 6appln-2998-10 parity, as claimed by the present applicant, cannot be accepted so far as the bail already granted to the co-accused (husband of the present applicant) is concerned. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail application is rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. Application is disposed of in above terms. (A.R.JOSHI,J)