1 25711ABA.323-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2011 Shravankumar Purshottamdas Bagaria. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.S.B. Munde, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.P.D. Dalvi, for Intervenor. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2011 [IN CHAMBER, 2:40 PM] P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions on this repeated application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant/accused in the matter of C.R. No.I-12/2011 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath, District – Thane. 2. Though the present repeated application for anticipatory bail is preferred on the alleged changed circumstances, in fact, there is no change in the circumstances vis-a-vis role of the present applicant is concerned. His first application for 2 25711ABA.323-11 anticipatory bail bearing No.116 of 2011 was finally heard and rejected by this Bench vide order dated 24.3.2011. It is curious to note that after the said order dated 24.3.2011, present repeated application for anticipatory bail was preferred on 13.4.2011. It was initially placed before another Bench, however, in order to observe judicial discipline and judicial propriety, the present application was brought before this Bench and is taken for hearing and final orders. 3. During the arguments, learned Counsel Shri S.B. Munde for the applicant produced an affidavit sworn by the applicant dated 15.6.2011. Said affidavit is accompanied by various documents including the handwriting and specimen signatures purported to be those of the applicant. Such signatures were apparently obtained before some Notary. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the changed circumstance is in fact the reports received from the examiner of questioned documents. Those reports are dated 6.5.2011 and 13.5.2011. It is further submitted that these reports are not incriminating against the applicant so far as the signatures on the alleged agreement of sale are concerned. 4. This Court has earlier passed a detailed order on 3 25711ABA.323-11 24.3.2011 after discussing the entire factual position and as such in this repeated application for anticipatory bail, it is not necessary to reiterate the said details. However, suffice it to say that here in this matter apparently the original owner of the landed property one Smt.Charushila Virkar died on 18.1.1988. However, purportedly a power of attorney was created vide which said Smt.Charushila had given all the rights to deal with the immovable property to one Shri Shashi Sharma. Said power of attorney is dated 20.6.1998. The date of death and the date of the power of attorney are significant enough and need no further comments rendering the said power of attorney prima facie fabricated document. Second admitted position cannot be ignored inasmuch as said Shashi Sharma is Manager of the present applicant even said position has also been mentioned in the earlier order of this Bench dated 24.3.2011 and said position has not been disputed by the applicant. According to the applicant, he had purchased the said immovable property from said Shashi Sharma when Shashi Sharma posed himself as power of attorney holder of Smt.Charushila. Considering the details earlier mentioned in the order dated 24.3.2011 and considering the arguments now advanced on behalf of the applicant by producing an affidavit of the applicant accompanied by certain documents, in the opinion of 4 25711ABA.323-11 this Court it cannot be considered as a case of changed circumstance so as to reappreciate the material and to come to a different conclusion than that was arrived as to rejection of the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. Prior to parting with the present order, certain factual position as brought to the notice of this Bench by learned Counsel Shri Dalvi for the intervenor is required to be mentioned in order to ascertain the conduct of the present applicant. It is submitted on behalf of the intervenor / orig. complainant that after the rejection of the anticipatory bail application vide order dated 24.3.2011, a writ petition was preferred by the applicant before the Division Bench and when the Division Bench was at the verge of dismissing the Petition, it was withdrawn by the applicant on 21.6.2011. After said withdrawal of the writ petition, Criminal Application No.555 of 2011 was preferred by the applicant before the Single Bench of this Court (Justice B.R. Gavai). Now said application has been sent to the Division Bench for appropriate directions. Without making any comments on the conduct of the applicant, on account of filing of the above referred Writ Petition and Criminal Application, suffice it to say that this is not a case for changed circumstances and also not a case for grant of 5 25711ABA.323-11 discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and consequently present application is disposed of with following order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.323 of 2011 for anticipatory bail is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. Civil Application for intervention also stands disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) PPD