1 Appln 5747-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5747 OF 2010 Sumit Ganpat Bachewar ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2011 Sunil Kumar Nandpal Lohriya ..Intervener alias Sunil Kumar Dutt V/s. Sumit Ganpat Bachewar ..Applicant And The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Ajay Patil, for the Applicant Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent  State Mr.M.H.Ahooja, Advocate, for Intervener CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . This is an application for anticipatory bail by one Bachewar, who 2 Appln 5747-2010 apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.I-457 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 406, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai presumably after a Division Bench of this Court passed necessary orders. 2. The allegations on which the applicant apprehends arrest are as under :- One Thakur family was entitled to be alloted a plot of land by CIDCO presumably as their lands had been acquired for the development of new township. Even before this allotment could materialize, applicant Bachewar had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with accused Nos.2 & 3 Gori and Sunil Bhanushali on 6th August, 2004. On 20th February, 2007, an Agreement was entered into between the allotees and CIDCO. One of the ten allotees was one Smt. Venubai Hari Kadu. When the Agreement was executed on 20th 3 Appln 5747-2010 February, 2007, Smt. Venubai was alive. She died on 9th November, 2007. On 9th April, 2008, a registered Agreement was entered into between CIDCO and the allotees to which the applicant was not a party. While executing this Agreement against the name of Smt. Venubai, her daughter Geetabai put her thumb mark. It is nobody's case that apart from Geetabai, Smt. Venubai had another heir. After this Agreement, a Tripartite Agreement was executed amongst the present applicant, CIDCO and the allotees on 20th March, 2009. Again on this Tripartite Agreement Geetabai put her thumb mark against the name of Smt. Venubai. 3. In the mean time, there was another Memorandum of Understanding entered into between Bhanushali and S.M.Gori on 14th September, 2005 in respect of the same property. Bhanushali and Gori, on 23rd April, 2008 agreed to sell the property to the 4 Appln 5747-2010 Complainant on whose report an offence has been registered i. e. Sunilkumar. 4. It is the case of Sunilkumar that in fact, the present applicant had agreed to sell the property to said Sunilkumar and a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/-was paid towards consideration. When Sunilkumar was abroad in Newzealand, he learnt that the applicant had in fact entered into an Agreement in respect of the same property in favour of Wellwishers builders. Subsequently, there has been another Tripartite Agreement entered into on 9th March, 2010 amongst CIDCO, Gupta & Wellwisher builder. Thus, instead of the land going to the Complainant Sunilkumar, it has now gone to some other builder. The applicant as well as others applied before the Court of Sessions for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Judge by his Order dated 10th December, 2010 admitted Brijmohan Gupta, Sanjay Gawande, Kashish Gupta, Chandrakant 5 Appln 5747-2010 Bhansali, Abhijeet Bhansali, Lahiri Bhanushali and Shambhulal Gori to anticipatory bail. He, however, rejected application of the present applicant. He has observed in his order that the applicant could be responsible for fabrication of documents or suppressing of record. The learned Judge stated that the applicant was the person, who was knowing status of the land. He is the person concerned with the property. The learned Judge observed that all the relevant documents from CIDCO in respect of the land are with Bachewar. He stated that the applicant was the person, who was aware of all the earlier transactions from which subsequent events have occured and therefore, custodial interrogation of Bachewar was necessary. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants as well as the learned APP for the State. I have also heard Advocate Ahooja, albeit for two minutes, for 6 Appln 5747-2010 the Intervener. 6. The learned APP confirmed on enquiry with the investigating officer ACP Vijay Vatkar that a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- has not gone to the present applicant, but to Gori. As far as Geetabai signing in the place of Smt. Venubai, it is thoroughly inconsequential, since it is not shown from the documents on record that applicant had either identified Geetabai to be Smt. Venubai or set her up as such. In any case, she is one of ten beneficiaries who entered into an Agreement with CIDCO & the present applicant. 7. Therefore, when all the other parties to the transactions namely Brijmohan Gupta, Sanjay Gawande, Kashish Gupta, Chandrakant Bhansali, Abhijeet Bhansali, Lahiri Bhanushali and Shambhulal Gori have been admitted to bail by the learned Judge, it is not clear as to what investigating officer would achieve by 7 Appln 5747-2010 taking the applicant into custody. As for the observations of the learned Judge in his order that relevant documents from CIDCO, or in respect of the land are with Bachewar, it is not that documents would be unavailable from CIDCO or other authorities. Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate between the present applicant and others, who have been admitted to anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the interim Order dated 23rd December, 2010 is confirmed. 8. Criminal Application is disposed of. 9. In view of disposal of Criminal Application No.5747 of 2010, Criminal Misc. Application No.6 of 2011 does not survive and the same stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)