1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1616/07. Shri Vijaykumar Panduranji Dhomne .vs. State of Mah. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 21st June, 2007. 1. Heard Shri A.Y.Kapgate, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Y.B.Mandpe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. One Annapurna Pathe owned agriculture land at village Tara Sawanga, Distt.Wardha. It is alleged that the present applicant, who belongs to same village came to one of the relatives of deceased Annapurna; namely Smt.Premlata. He told her that she has to come for the last rites of Annapurna at Tara Sawanga. It is alleged that the present applicant took Smt.Premlata to the office of Sub-registrar, Narkhed and sale-deed was executed in favour of Jaishree Bele and Meena Bele in 2 respect of the field owned by Annapurnabai. It is alleged that Annapurnabai died long ago and Smt.Premlata personated herself as Annapurnabai while executing sale-deed. It is further alleged that the said field was in possession of one Ratnabai Kokate. She was being dispossessed in respect of which she made a complaint to the Collector. The Collector had forwarded the complaint to the Police and accordingly offence has been registered upon the report of Smt.Kokate. Therefore, the applicant Vijay apprehends arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant has no concern whatsoever with the transaction. He submitted that he is not even a beneficiary of the transaction and therefore, it is apparent that he is being falsely implicated in the matter. He submitted that, therefore, this is a fit case where an innocent should be spared and should be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, submitted that there is ample evidence of complicity of the present applicant. He particularly invited my attention to the statement of Smt.Premlata. The statement of Premlata clearly goes to show that the present applicant had gone to her and on some pretext brought her to the office of Sub- 3 Registrar and got the sale deed executed. It is, therefore, apparent that the main person who was instrumental in execution of the sale-deed was present applicant. It also appears that the present applicant is very much aware that Annapurna is dead and inspite of that knowledge he brought Premlata with him as Annapurna and produced her before the Sub-Registrar. The matter definitely needs investigation. In the circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case where the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order. Application is rejected. JUDGE pzc