Ladda 1 aba-116-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 116 OF 2011. Shravankumar Purshottamdas Bagadiya ...Applicants. And Rahul Shravankumar Bagadiya Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 89 of 2011 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 116 OF 2011. Shravankumar Purshottamdas Bagadiya ...Applicants. And Rahul Shravankumar Bagadiya Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Sou. Aarti Vitthal Pange ...Intervener (Orig.Complainant) Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Gopal Bhagat, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr P.D. Dalvi, Advocate for Intervener. Mr J.P.Kharge, A.P.P.for the State. Ladda 2 aba-116-11.doc CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:- 24th March 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application. Also heard learned Counsel for the Intervener-original complainant. 2. Present application for anticipatory bail is preferred by the applicants apprehending their arrest in the matter of C.R.No. I/12/2011 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ambernath, District Thane. Said F.I.R. was registered on 28th January, 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 448, 471, read with Section 34 of I.P.C. for taking action against the present applicant No.1, his son and four other persons, including one Advocate and Notary from Kalyan, District Thane. 3. When present application was earlier taken before the another Bench and applicant No.2, son of the present applicant No.1, was granted anticipatory bail by the another Bench (Shri R.C.Chavan,J). Then directions were given that till the hearing and final disposal of the application concerning the present applicant No.1, there may not be any arrest of applicant No.1. Under these premise, the matter came before this Bench on the last date i.e. on 14th March, 2011. On that day learned Counsel for the Intervener, first time present before the Court, Ladda 3 aba-116-11.doc submitted that there was an attempt to compromise between the complainant and the present applicant No.1 and it was made known to the complainant that such directions of compromise were given by the Court. Making appropriate note on 14th March, 2011 matter was posted today for final hearing. 4. During the arguments, learned Senior Counsel Shri Gupte for the applicant No.1 submitted that in fact as per the contents of the F.I.R. the allegations are only against one co-accused by name Shashi Sharma and that there is nothing alleged against the present applicant No.1 as to fabrication of any document much less the document of power of attorney. It is further submitted that the present applicant had purchased the particular plot of land, claimed to be in the ownership of the original complainant from said power of attorney holder Shashi Sharma. 5. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the rival parties, including of the Intervener original complainant, certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced and the arguments advanced, can be narrated, in order to have proper perspective of the matter. Originally, land was belonging to one Shivram Janu Waghmare and it was purchased by one Smt Charushila Vairkar from one Digambar Vishnu Joshi who happened to be the Ladda 4 aba-116-11.doc constituted attorney of said Shivram Janu Waghmare. Said property was purchased by Smt Charushila Vairkar sometime in the year 1969. Original complainant who lodged F.I.R. is one of the daughters of said Charushila Vairkar. 6. The allegations mentioned in the complaint are that she learnt regarding the transaction of sale of the property belonging to her mother as she received a letter from Talathi Ambernath in the name of Smt Charushila Vairkar. Such letter was received somewhere in August, 2008. By that time, in fact, said Smt Charushila Vairkar had already died on 18th January,1988. After enquiring with the Talathi office and also with the other Government offices, it was revealed by the complainant that present applicant No.1 had entered into some transaction with Shashi Sharma and said Shashi Sharma had claimed to be the constituted attorney of Smt Charushila Vairkar. It was also revealed and in fact the factual position that said Shashi Sharma was appointed as constituted attorney of Smt.Charushila Vairkar vide Power of Attorney dated 20th June, 1996. This is, in fact, the allegation and in fact submission on behalf of the applicants and co-accused. However, still the admitted fact remains that said Smt Charushila Vairkar died on 18th January,1988. It is also a factual position that said Shashi Sharma is Manager of present applicant-accused No.1 and this factual position Ladda 5 aba-116-11.doc has not been disputed. It is also factual position that vide agreement for sale dated 13th October, 1996, probably within the span of four months from the alleged execution of power of attorney dated 20th June, 1996, present applicant No.1 entered into a transaction with said Shashi Sharma for purchase of the said plot of land for total consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Subsequently, it is also an admitted position that by a registered sale deed dated 7th May, 2010 entered into between the said Shashi Sharma and present applicant accused No.1 said plot of land was shown to have been purchased. 7. During the argument, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant No.1 brought attention of this Court towards one letter sent by the Manager, Canara Bank, Ambernath (East) Branch, to the present applicant No.1, being the Proprietor of Bagaria Builders and Developers. By pointing out the contents of the said letter, it is submitted that in fact two cheques for Rs.20,000/- each were given in the name of Smt Charushila Vairkar. Said cheque Nos. 443196 and 443222 and debited in the Account No.1893 of Bagaria Builders on the same day i.e. 15th July, 1996. By pointing out this letter, it is submitted that in fact amount of total consideration for said purchase of plot was given to the mother of the present complainant. 8. As against the above, the attention of this Court is drawn towards Ladda 6 aba-116-11.doc the contents of the agreement for sale, which is also a registered document dated 30th October,1996. This agreement of sale as mentioned above entered into between Shashi Sharma, posing himself to be the constituted attorney of Smt Charushila Vairkar and present applicant accused No.1. In the second page of said agreement of sale there is specific mention of same two cheques bearing Nos. 443196 and 443222, for Rs.20,000/- each, vide which the payment was made by the applicant No.1, then vendor i.e. through the constituted attorney - Shashi Sharma. By pointing out this, it is submitted on behalf of the original complainant that Shashi Sharma is none less than the associate of the present applicant - accused No.1 and as such said amount has never gone into the account of the deceased Smt Charushila Vairkar and it cannot be accepted that there was any agreement between said Charushila Vairkar and the present applicant No.1. 9. Considering the above factual circumstances and still considering that applicant No.2 was already released on anticipatory bail by another Bench, in the opinion of this Court, and specifically considering the role of Shashi Sharma, at one point of time posing himself as power of attorney holder of the woman Smt Charushila Vairkar who died on 18th January, 1988 and again posing himself as the vendor and entering into agreement with the present applicant accused No.1 for sale of the said Ladda 7 aba-116-11.doc plot of land and also in fact accepting the said two cheques of Rs.20,000 each goes to show that there is connivance between co-accused and mainly between said Shashi Sharma and present applicant No.1. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, this is not a case in which discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted. Criminal Application stands dismissed. 10. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Application No. 116 of 2011 Intervener’s Application No. 89 of 2011 also disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)