IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3182 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3182 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3182 OF 2008 1. Jaikishan Thakurdas Lakhani 2. Jagdish Lalchand Lakhani ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Anil Lulla with Mr.Kunal Bhanage for the Applicants. Mr.A.H.H. Ponda for the Respondent. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2009 Gopal Hassanand Bhatia ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Girish Paryani for the Applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 27, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 27, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 27, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. Initially, ad-interim order was granted by this Court on 10th September, 2008 (Coram : Smt. V.K. - 2 - Tahilramani, J.). Thereafter, the parties were trying to explore the possibility of settlement. However, I am informed that there is no possibility of settlement between the parties. The applicants in Criminal Application No.3182/2008 is a builder. The applicant has an apprehension that he is likely to be arrested in connection with a complaint which is lodged against him under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 Part II and Section 34 of the IPC. According to the complainant, the Secretary of the society - Mulchand Rangnani and the developers had forged documents and forged their signatures for the purpose of obtaining redevelopment and IOD without informing the members of the society and the chairman. It is the case of the complainant that they are members of the society and he got inspection of the documents from the BMC office on 12.12.2006 through the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to the complainant, the applicants who were persons of Radhakishan Constructions approached their society for the purpose of demolition of the entire building and for redevelopment. It is the case of the complainant that the talks went on for four years, - 3 - however, no agreement was executed. It is their case that on 6.11.2006, the accused came to the building and removed doors, windows and grills of flat nos.2, 4, 6 and 9 and broke walls and electric wiring and pipes of the said flats. The accused, according to the complainant, knew that they had not given consent to the demolition and reconstruction and therefore, they were not dispossessed. It is the case of the complainant that backdated and forged documents are prepared. It is alleged that the complainant’s signature has been forged on the Undertaking-cum-Indemnity Bond. It is also alleged that the agreement for TDR contained his forged signature. The resolution which was purportedly passed in the General Body Meeting dated 15th August, 2008 also was having his signature which was forged. The case of the complainant is that atleast six documents were fabricated and on one such document, signature of one Mr.Bhatia was obtained and he was shown as chairman when in fact he was not chairman of the society and on the basis of these documents, the BMC granted redevelopment permission. It is the case of the complainant that the forgery and fabrication of the signature of this - 4 - document became known to the complainant after inspection was taken on 12.12.2006. An application for anticipatory bail was filed initially in the Sessions Court, however, the said application was rejected and thereafter, the present application has been filed in this court. The allegations which are made against the applicants in the complaint are very serious in nature. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that in the complaint which was filed, the allegations are made against the secretary and the secretary was behind the bars for one and half month. It was submitted that the case pertains to forging of documents and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicants were not necessary. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No.56/2009 submitted that the said applicant was 67 years old and he had not forged any signature but has made his own signature. It was further submitted that the said complaint had been filed as an arm twisting technique to knock out the money - 5 - from the builder and developers. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant strenuously urged before me that the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents were incorrect. He submitted that the respondents had admitted that General Body Meeting had taken place on 15th August, 2008. It was submitted that IOD could be obtained without the consent of all the members. It was submitted that in any event, in the complaint it was alleged that the Secretary Rangnani had forged the signatures. 6. Shri Ponda, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations which are made against the applicants herein are of serious nature and therefore, their custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. I have heard both the learned Counsel for the applicants and the respondents and the learned APP for the State, at length. The material which is on record, - 6 - prima facie indicates the involvement of the present applicants. The complainant and his wife did not accede to the demands made by the builders and prima facie, it appears that the applicants and developers are hand in glove and forged certain documents in order to obtain necessary permission from the BMC. The other applicant Bhatia represented that he is a chairman of the said society and signed as Chairman of the society when in fact, at the relevant time, he was not the chairman. It was represented, therefore, before the BMC that the chairman and all the members had consented to the demand for redevelopment and on the basis of this representation, the BMC sanctioned the plan. Since the complainant did not accede to the said demand on the basis of the commencement certificate which was obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and forged and fabricated documents, the applicants-developers may have attempted to make the life of the complainant miserable. They systematically broke down the building by removing the electrical wirings, iron grills, doors, windows of other flats which has now become one of the standard practices which are made by the developers in the city - 7 - to break down the resistance of tenants and other members who are unwilling to join the development scheme. Grievance of the complainant was that the builder was offering lesser area to them in the redeveloped building and therefore, they had not accepted their proposal. 8. Taking into consideration all these tactics made by the applicants and prima facie, the allegations of the commission of serious offence by the applicants, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. In my view, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. The contention of the applicant in the other case is that he is old person of 67 years of age and that he had not received any benefit in the said transaction also cannot be accepted. It is yet to be ascertained what was the benefit received by the said applicants for representing himself as a chairman of the society where in fact he was not the chairman. Prima facie, it appears that the said applicant was aware that if he had not signed as a chairman, the said development plan, would not have been sanctioned. Prima facie, - 8 - therefore, he was part of the said conspiracy alongwith the developers. For all these reasons, application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 9. Since the matter is pending for a long time, three weeks’ time is given to the applicants to surrender before the appropriate court. The interim protection to continue for a period of three weeks from today. 10. The applications are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)