1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3174 OF 2010 Ramdas Dhunakar Nighukar .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. K.S. Patil, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State. Mr. Tushar Goradia, Advocate for respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 23rd August, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicant files this application for bail under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with C.R.No.50 of 2010 registered with Taloja Police Station, Navi Mumbai, at the instance of respondent no.2- complainant. It appears that by the registered sale-deed dated 26/2/1991 father of the applicant sold agricultural land admeasuring 24 ares to one Ashfaq Ahmed Khan and Anees Ahmed Khan. The applicant was a witness to the sale-deed. Thereafter, however, neither the revenue records came to be mutated nor possession of the land handed over to the purchasers. Despite that no steps have been taken by respondent no.2 to assert his title over the land. 2 2. The applicant on the other hand claims that the sale was vitiated as respondent no.2 is not an agriculturist and as such could not have purchased the land. 3. It is alleged that in the year 2009, the applicant executed power of attorney in favour of the other accused person who, on the basis of the power of attorney sold the land to his own brother. It is alleged that the applicant despite the knowledge of the transaction, re-sold the land through his constituted power of attorney and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 405, 409, 418, 420, 423, 425, 441, 463, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120B, 114 Indian Penal Code. 4. Perusal of the complaint shows that the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute. It has, however, been argued that the constituted attorney of the applicant as also, his brother have been absconding and are not available to the Police for the purpose of interrogation. Even if that is so, considering the facts of the case, the custody of the applicant is hardly required for the purpose of interrogation. The learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer present in the court, makes a statement that the Police have not even once called the applicant for the purpose of interrogation. They have been content, only on making telephone calls to the applicant. In these circumstances, the application is allowed by 3 confirming the interim order dated 15th July 2010 i.e. in the event of arrest of the applicant in C.R. No.50 of 2010 of Taloja Police Station, Navi Mumbai, he shall be released on bail on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The applicant is directed to co-operate in the investigation of the complaint, and report as and when, called upon by the Police. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)