*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3849/2009 Mahendra Sanchala. ..Applicant -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent ............... Mr.V.G.Pradhan, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.J.S.Kini, Advocate i/b Mr.Suresh Dubey, for the Applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P., for the Respondent/State. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 02nd September, 2009. PC:- 1 The present Applicant is a practicing Advocate who has moved this application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No.68/2006 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Unit-2 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The offence was initially registered in the year 2006, however, after seeking permission of the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer has re-investigated the offence. On account of re-investigation, the present Applicant and other co- accused came to be arrested. 2 According to the prosecution, the immovable property situated at Juhu was originally owned by one Chapsi Mistry and is *2* said to be very valuable property. Chapsi Mistry (original owner) expired in the year 1986 and at that time the said property was in possession of Mary Pereira, Edward Pereira, Stella Pereira, Elizabeth Pereira and Nazareth Pereira. The said persons have sold the said property by executing five separate sale deeds in favour of Vinod Anand, the Director of M/s Karimji Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1994. According to the prosecution, the members of Pereira family had no title to the property at all, however, the said property was recorded in their names by preparing false and forged documents and the present Applicant has played a crucial role in preparing the false documents. On the basis of the said documents prepared by the Applicant, the property of which the market value is in crores of rupees has been shown to have been sold for consideration of meager amount of Rs.22.5 Lac. The City Survey Officer has found that the said documents, on the basis of which the property came to be mutated in the name of Pereira family and thereafter, in the name of Vinod Anand, were forged and false documents. After arrest of the Applicant on 05.08.2009, he was remanded in Police custody till 14.08.2009 and thereafter, the Applicant is remanded to the magisterial custody. 3 In the above set of facts, the application came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge and hence, this application before the High Court. 4 The documents in question are with the concerned offices and nothing is to be recovered from the present Applicant. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the Applicant, this is a fit case for release of the Applicant on bail. *3* 5 The learned APP submits that in the event if the bail is granted, the Applicant be put to terms and be directed to attend the Police Station so that the investigation is not hampered. 6 Having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In the result, I pass the following order:- (a) The Applicant shall be released on bail on execution of a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (b) The Applicant on his release shall attend the Economic Offences Wing, Unit-2, Mumbai daily for a period of one week in between 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm and thereafter, once a week i.e. on every Saturday between 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm. (c) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or pressurize or contact the witnesses. (d) For a period of two weeks, the Applicant is permitted to deposit the bail amount in cash during which period the surety shall be arranged. (e) The Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (A.P. Deshpande, J)