1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4304 OF 2009 Mrs. Chetana Uday Ilpate. ..Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.481 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4304 OF 2009 Mrs. Chetana Uday Ilpate. ..Applicant/ Accused. V/s State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. And S.S.K. Kanak Developers & Property Management ..Applicant/ Intervener. Mr. Prakash Naik for the applicant. Mr. Jayant Bardoskar i/b. Mr. N. Mundargi for Respondent. Ms. A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. 2 P.C.: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. F.I.R. came to be filed alleging that a transaction for sale of land by impersonating was made through the present applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely involved in the present crime. It is submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and that she was acting as a broker. It is submitted that the transaction was executed after some persons were introduced to the present applicant by other to the owners of the land. It is submitted that the Applicant did not have any occasion to personally know the original owners of the land and therefore, the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. 2. Learned APP submits that the applicant is the main accused in the crime. It is submitted that in the transaction which was executed by impersonating the original owners, the Applicant has received Rs. 1,17,59,244/- and therefore, involvement of the present applicant cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that the persons who had impersonated as the original owners have been identified by the present applicant at the time of execution of the sale deed and unless the present applicant is arrested, whereabout of the said persons cannot be found. 3 3. Present application is for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegation against the applicant are of serious nature. The case involves execution of the sale deed by impersonating original owners. Involvement of the present applicant in the said crime atleast at this stage cannot be ruled out. It cannot be said that the allegation of the prosecution against the applicant are either fabricated or frivolous. It is also the case of the prosecution that unless the present applicant is arrested, whereabout of the persons who have impersonated the original owners cannot be found. As such, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the present application is not necessary. 4. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present application. The same is rejected. 5. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that interim protection granted in favour of the applicant be continued for a further period of four weeks. Said prayer is strongly opposed by the learned APP . However, taking into consideration that there was an interim order operating in the matter, I am inclined to extend the same for a period of two weeks from today. Application disposed accordingly. 4 6. In view of disposal of the Application No.4304 of 2009, nothing survives in the Application No.481 of 2009. The same is disposed of accordingly. (B.R.GAVAI,J)