2009aba275.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 275 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 275 OF 2011 (Mohd. Rafique Abdul Raheman Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Mr. Sachin Zoting, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM: U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 20TH SEPT., 2011 1. Heard. 2. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Khamgaon (City) police station Crime No. 61/2011 registered for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the present application. 3. One Ajaykumar Kutarekar has lodged the complaint with Khamgaon police alleging that his property situated at mouza Dhotra of Khamgaon taluka has been sold by some unknown person naming himself as Ajaykumar Kutarekar and posing himself as the owner of the said land. It is in this connection that the offence has been registered against the said unknown person with other co-accused persons which includes the present applicant. 4. The applicant has stated that he is the owner of the grocery shop as also a member of the Gram Panchayat and thus 2009aba275.11.odt 2/3 is a reputed person. He has further stated that he was only one of the witnesses to the said sale deed dated 16/12/2010 and that he has not prepared any bogus or false document. He has stated that he has no connection with the impostor. He has also stated that the broker Mr. Sayyed Rauf Sayed Ahemad has been already granted regular bail and the purchaser namely Ravindra Mutha is also granted anticipatory bail, by this Court. He, therefore, prays for anticipatory bail. 5. The respondent has objected for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is the only person from whom it can be ascertained as to who are involved in the crime. It is stated in the reply that if he is granted bail, the applicant may pressurise witnesses and may tamper with the evidence. 6. Considering the fact that the present applicant was only an attesting witness to the execution of sale deed dated 16/12/2010 in favour of one Ravindra Mutha, the fact that Ravindra Mutha has been granted anticipatory bail and the fact that even the broker Mr. Sayyed Rauf is on bail, I am of the view that no purpose will be served by detaining the present applicant in custody, in the event of his arrest. 7. Hence, the application is allowed. 8. In the event of arrest of the applicant in Khamgaon (City) police station Crime No. 61/2011 registered for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant shall be released on 2009aba275.11.odt 3/3 bail upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount under the following conditions :- (a) The applicant shall attend Khamgaon (City) Police Station as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer, to do so. (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (c) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the learned Court having jurisdiction over the matter. 9. Hamdast granted. JUDGE wwl