( 1 ) 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.401 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2008 Deepak Sakharam Sawant & Anr. .. Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Sudatta Patil for the applicants. Ms.A.T.Javeri, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Sudatta Patil for the applicants and Ms.A.T.Javeri, A.P.P. for State. 2. The applicants apprehend arrest in C.R.No.43 of 2007 of Savarde Police Station. The prosecution case in gist is that on 14.8.2007, a lady by name Laxmibai Ramchandra Dalvi posed herself as Sitabai Ramchandra Davli and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of co-accused Janardhan Sarang because Sitabai was the original owner in respect of certain properties bearing Gut No.465. The plans made by execution of this Power of Attorney, Janardhan Sarang ( 2 ) was to dispose off the said property and dupe the original owner as the documents goes to show that present petitioners acted as witnesses to the said document of Power of Attorney dated 14.8.2007 and the said document came into existence as a result of the present petitioners’ tendering their signatures as witnesses thereby in a way identifying Laxmibai as Sitabai. It is the case of the prosecution that utilising this Power of Attorney Janardhan Sarang executed a Deed of Sale in favour of one Mr.Mohammed Ashraf Mohamed Haji in regard to the land bearing Gut No.465 and that is how, the original owner Sitabai was subjected to loss to the extent of the property. The lodgement of the FIR set the criminal law in motion and for some time, interim relief was running in favour of the present petitioners which got vacated on 11.4.2008 and as of today, the petitioners are without any interim relief. 3. Learned Advocate Mr.Patil pressed for anticipatory bail contending that the accused lady has been granted bail by the Court below as well as the persons, who had witnessed the document of sale have already been granted bail by the Court below and, therefore, on the prayer of parity, these clients are entitled to anticipatory bail. ( 3 ) 4. Across the Bar, it was mentioned that the original documents, namely; the Sale Deed and the power of attorney are yet to be recovered from nobody including the present petitioners. 5. According to Mr.Patil, the petitioners bonafide acted as witnesses and that is how they are innocent. 6. Ms.Javeri, learned A.P.P. opposed the request for anticipatory bail contending that the petitioners ought to know that they were identifying a wrong lady as Sitabai particularly because the petitioners hail from the village Tondli and originally owner Sitabai also hails from Tondli and the photograph of the perpetrator of the crime namely, Laxmibai is very much annexed to the document of Power of Attorney. According to her, the petitioners acting as witnesses, the document of power of attorney was shown to them and that is how the complexity of the present petitioners is very much made out and the allegations are serious and custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. The role alleged against the present applicants prima-facie is made out. The Xerox copy of the power of attorney clearly goes to show that the petitioners had the benefit of seeing the photograph ( 4 ) of Laxmibai and they proceeded to identify Laxmibai as Sitabai. The petitioners cannot disown the fact that they were knowing the Laxmibai and not Sitabai because Sitabai hails from village Tondli. The role against the petitioners is clear and prima-facie case for charges regarding forgery are made out. 8. In my view, the allegations are of a serious nature but for the petitioners acting as witnesses, the document of Power of Attorney would not have seen the light and it is on the basis of this Power of Attorney, further transactions were entered into thereby duping the real owner. In my view, this is not a case where this Court should exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners and prayer for anticipatory bail is required to be rejected. Hence, I pass the following order. a) Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. It is clarified that as of today, there is no interim protection running against the petitioners. 9. Application for anticipatory bail stands rejected accordingly in the above terms. ( 5 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)