FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2457/2010 Kalpesh Laxmichand Hariya v. State. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr H.H. Ponda i/by Manish Jagani for the applicant. Mrs A. S.Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 9TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by original accused No.5. 2. Present applicant-accused No.5 apprehends his arrest in CR No.I-148/2010 filed by the original complainant one Smt Sumitra Dongre. Allegations against the applicant are that in assocation with co-accused and mainly accused No.2, he committed forgery of the document of power of attorney. Said alleged power of attorney is dated 25.3.1994. According to the complainant, she had not executed any such power of attorney and her signature on the same is forged by some of the accused in association with others. 3. Admittedly, there is a property dispute and the complainant has tried to obstruct the development on the suit land, initiated by the accused persons through their partnership firm. Admittedly, R.C.S.No.538/2007 came to be lodged by the partnership firm against the complainant and two other persons. On 22.4.2008 temporary injunction has already been granted by the concerned Civil Judge, restraining the complainant and two others from interfering with the possession of the suit property. It is alleged by the complainant that the power of attorney allegedly giving rights for development of the suit land in favour of the partnership firm of accused No.2 of which the present applicant-accused no.5 was one of the partners. It is an admitted position that as on the date of the power of attorney i.e.on 25.3.1994 present applicant-accused No.5 was hardly nine years old and there are no allegations that the said power of attorney was subsequently got executed and signature of the applicant was forged by the present applicant- accused No.5. 4. During the arguments, learned Senior Advocate Shri Ponda pointed out the documents showing various payments given by cheques in the account of the complainant and it is in furtherance of the agreement for development entered into between the parties. During the arguments it is also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the present applicant-accused No.5 is not necessary and even during the pendency of the present anticipatory bail application on asking by the concerned police the original power of attorney has already been given to the Investigating Officer by the co-accused. 5. Considering the above factual position and mainly considering the allegations against the accused persons cumulatively and considering the age of the present applicant-accused No.5 as on 25.3.1994 and considering the civil dispute between the parties and still considering part payments made in favour of the complainant that also by way of cheques, in the opinion of this Court, present application can be allowed on certain conditions being imposed on the applicant. Hence, the order: :ORDER: (a) Anticipatory Bail application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant Kalpesh Laxmichand Hariya in C.R. No. I-148/2010, he shall be released on executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-with one surety in the like amount. (b) In the event of arrest and availing of bail, the applicant shall attend Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan on every Tuesday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon for the period of four weeks after availing the bail. (c) With these directions anticipatory bail application is disposed of. 6. Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merit of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J)