- 1 - 220.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2011 Shri Tukaram Trimbak Pimputkar .. Applicant vs M/s Asha Associates & ors .. Respondents (through their partners) 1.Shri Vinod Gangaram Patel 2.Shri Dinesh Devshibhai Patel 3.Shri Dinesh RatanshibhaiPatel 4.Shri Nilesh Maganbhai Patel 5.Shri Jitendra Savjibhai Patel 6.Sou.Shanta Vinod Patel 7.Shri Shailesh Purushottambhai Patel 8.Smt Sharada Bupendrabhai Patel 9.Shri Vijay Ishwarbhai Patel 10.Smt Surya Dineshbhai Patel 11.Smt Ragini Dineshbhai Patel 12.Shri Prakash Raujibhai Patel 13.Smt Sonal Dineshbhai Patel 14.ShriRamesh PUrushottam Parasiya 15.State ofMaharashtra (th.NRI Sagari police Stn) .. Responents Mr.S.V.Dhakephalkar for Applicant Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for Respt nos. 1 to 14 Mr.S.R.Chitnis i.b Mr.Jeetendra Sachdev for Respt no.15 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 24th August, 2011 P.C. 1. This Application is filed for cancellation of - 2 - 220.11 anticipatory bail granted to the respondents in Cri.No.166 of 2010 registered with NRI Sagari police station, Navi Mumbai. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents. According to the Applicant, he and one more person were allotted certain land by the CIDCO under 12.5% scheme. One Kalpesh Palan forged certain documents including an Agreement for sale in his favour, purported to have been executed by the Applicant/ Complainant without making any payment to him. The documents were also not signed by him. On the basis of the forged documents, said Kalpesh Palan entered into an Agreement for sale of the land in favour of the Respondents. It is contended that all these documents were forged in collusion among Kalpesh Palan and the Respondents. It appears that the Respondents have also filed Special Civil Suit for specific performance of the contract against Kalpesh Palan as well as the present Applicant. - 3 - 220.11 Anticipatory bail was granted to the Respondents by the Sessions Court on the ground that there was no contract between the Applicant and the Respondents and the documents, which are purported to have been signed by the present Applicant, were not forged by the Respondents but by Kalpesh Palan and the Respondent's claim is based not on the disputed documents but under a different agreement executed by Kalpesh Palan in favour of the Respondents. 3. Admittedly, Kalpesh Palan was arrested and later on he was granted bail. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no valid reason to interfere in the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondents. 4. Therefore, Application stand rejected. J.H.BHATIA, J - 4 - 220.11