1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5423 OF 2010 Vijay Singh Ramkrishna Verma ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.M.P.Mishra i/by M/s.M.P.Mishra and Co., adv. For the Applicant. Smt. P.P.Bhosale, APP for the Respondent Nos.1/State and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : DECEMBER 13, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no.3 by the learned Magistrate by the order dated 28.6.2010 in Crime No.565/09 registered by Vile Parle police station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. on the report lodged by the present applicant. 2 It appears that the disputed property, being plot no.385 and 386, city survey no.1851, belonged to the forefathers of the respondent no.3. Applicant had purchased said property from the father of the respondent no.3 in the year 1996. However, in the year 2000, applicant filed an application before the Collector for mutation. In the year 2003, father of the respondent no.3 died and thereafter the respondent no.3 and 2 his mother executed conveyance deed of the said property in favour of one Ashok Kelkar. According to the applicant when the property was already sold away by the father of the respondent no.3, he could not have sold the property to the respondent no.3, and, therefore, he approached the police in March, 2008. It appears that no action was taken on his report in 2008. On 4.11.2008 collector passed an order in favour of the applicant and rejected the prayer of Ashok Kelkar for recording his name. That order has become final because nobody has challenged that order. It appears that in October, 2009 again applicant approached the police and on 25.12.2009 offence came to be registered. The learned Magistrate granted bail to the respondent no.3 holding that dispute between the parties were going on for number of years and the dispute is of civil nature. 3 After perusal of the contentions of the present applicant and the impugned order, it appears that for about 8 years, matter was pending before the Collector for mutation of the name of the applicant and after contest, order was also passed in 2008. That order has become final and now that order can be implemented. Taking into consideration this history, I do not see any reason why bail granted to the respondent no.3 should be cancelled by this Court. The learned counsel for the applicant 3 contended that Magistrate could not grant bail for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467. However, there is no substance in his arguments, because this Court has already held in Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs. State of Maharashtra 2010 ALL MR (Criminal) 2775 that if the offences is triable by the Magistrate, he can also grant bail. Same view was taken by this Court (Coram: R.C.Chavan, J.) in the case of Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 18th October, 2010 after referring to the judgment in the case of Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere (Supra) and other judgments of the Supreme Court. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)