1 Cri.A.2676.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2676 OF 2011 1. Jagdish Bajirao Marathe 2. Sau Sheetal Jagdish Marathe, R/o House No.78, Wagh Galli, Nalegaon, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, and another ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.N.B.Suraywanshi, Advocate for Applicants. Shri.B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for Respondents. Shri.P.K.Palwe,Advocate for original complainant to Assist APP. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 13TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime No.178 of 2011, registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under sections 420 ,468, 467 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Papers of investigation were made available by APP. Advocate Mr. Pradeep Palwe is allowed to assist APP. Both sides are heard. 2 Cri.A.2676.11 2. The Crime is registered on the basis of report given by Vasant Keshav Palwe. He has made allegation that false record of sale deed is created by Balu Sonwane and his daughter to show that share of Balu Sonwane in the property City Survey Nos. 6149, 6150 and 6151(A), which is having Municipal Corporation House No. 59, situated at Nalegaon Ahmednagar city, District Ahmednagar is sold to Anita Sonwane. Allegations are made that the witnesses who have signed on the document and even purchaser knew that Balu Sonwane had already sold his share to the complainant in the year 1977 and false record is created against rights of the complainant. Allegations are made against the applicants of present proceeding that they are behind creation of this record and they filed applications for entering the name of the Anita Sonwane in record of Assessment and also record of City Survey and those applications are in the handwriting of the present applicants. 3. Some record in respect of previous complaint given by the present applicants against complainant and by complainant against the present applicants is produced. Both have made allegations that they were being harassed. It is alleged by the present complainant that the applicants wanted to purchase the disputed property from him and to harass him they were causing damage to his property by throwing their garbage in his 3 Cri.A.2676.11 property. On the other hand, applicants had made allegations that complainant was harassing them for the same reason and complainant wanted to purchase the property situated adjacent to the disputed property. 4. APP submitted that Police have recorded statements of some witnesses. One person Mahadu gave statement that applicant No. 1 approached to him and asked him to sign on that sale deed as witness. Some statements of that line are recorded. On the basis of that APP submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. He also submitted that there is allegation that applications submitted to the offices of Municipal Corporation and City Survey are in the hand writing of the applicants and so for that also custodial interrogation is necessary. Copies of both applications were shown to this Court and this Court asked APP that these two applications are in hand writing of same person. APP admitted that there is difference in the handwriting and it is case of the complainant that one application is written by applicant NO.1 and another is written by applicant No.2. It is surprising that complainant has made such allegations but source of information is not mentioned in the complaint. Further alleged applications were given for entering name of Anita Sonwane, not of the applicants’. It was submitted that applicants had plan to purchase the property from Anita, so such record was created by the applicants. 4 Cri.A.2676.11 5. Allegations which are mentioned above show that nothing can be achieved by custodial interrogation of the present two applicants. Admittedly, they have not signed on the sale deed, which is allegedly executed by Balu Sonwane in favour of his daughter Anita. In view of the circumstances and in view of the dispute which is in between the present complainant and present applicants from the year 2008, this Court holds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicants. Interim relief granted in their favour is confirmed. The applicants are directed to give their specimen hand writing and signatures to the police of concerned Police Station on coming Sunday i.e. on 17.07.2011 and co-operate the investigation agency in investigation. These observations are not come in the way of trial Court while deciding the case. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK