1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.1817 OF 2009 AND CRI.APPLICATION NO.1748 OF 2009 Deepak Hiralal Goplani .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 25/06/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. Nos. 310/08 and 304/08 of Yerawada Police Station, Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 420,406, 467,471,201 read with 34 of IPC. 3. Two complaints, bearing C.R.Nos.310/08 and 304/08 against the applicant are filed by two different complainants. T 2 Both the complaints are in respect of plot no.58, situated at Survey No.2111 at Kalyani Nagar. (for short, “Plot”). The first complaint is filed by Vijay Kumar Mittal and the second by Tarunkumar Dumawat. 4. Both the complainants are in construction business while the applicant is an estate agent. One Prabhakar Bandopant Kulkarni, resident of USA, is the owner of the plot. On 27.2.2008, Kulkarni had given the plot for development to the firm-Mittal Developers, of which the complainant is one of the partners. Kulkarni had also executed a power of attorney in their favour. In February, 2008, when they visited the plot, they noticed one watchman was posted and, on inquiry with him, he told them that the plot was belonging to the applicant. Thereafter, the complainant and Kulkarni collected all the documents in respect of the plot and found that they were forged and fabricated by the applicant. It appears that even the power of attorney, purportedly executed by Kulkarni in favour of the applicant by producing some fictitious person as Kulkarni, was executed and on the basis thereof the plot was sold to another complainant Tarunkumar Dumawat. In this fraud, the co-accused-Sharad Diddi also helped the applicant. Mr Shivarkar, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that even 3 if it is assumed that prima facie case is made out against the applicant, his continued detention is not necessary. He submitted that there are no criminal antecedents at the credit of the applicant. He submitted that all the offences are triable by the Magistrate. The applicant came to be arrested on 7.7.2008. The submissions of Mr Shivarkar were not seriously opposed by the learned APP. 3. I perused the FIR and the other material placed before the court. It is true that prima facie case is made out against the applicant. However, looking to the fact that the investigation is over and the chargesheet has already been filed against the applicant and considering the fact that offence under all the sections is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, in my opinion, continued detention of the applicant is not necessary and he is entitled to be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions. The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent local sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the conditions that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every Wednesday and Saturday between 6 and 7 pm for a period 4 of three months and thereafter on every Saturday between 6 and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Both the applications are disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)