1 1 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.1683 OF 2009 Ajay Narsinhdas Patel .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Counsel with Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b Ganesh Gole and Amit Potnis for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Ashok K.Kavadia, original complainant in person. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Gupte, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr.Ashok Kavadia, the complainant in person. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.30 of 2009 of Pant Nagar police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The applicant is a developer and also a member of the Ghatkopar Vikas Co-operative Housing Society. It is the prosecution case that the members of the said society wanted to develop the property, and accordingly, its General Body passed a resolution dated 30.3.2003 assigning the rights of development to the present applicant. It is alleged that the applicant and other accused, in order to obtain 2 2 2 permission for redevelopment of the society, Plot No.47, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar, forged a signature of the complainant against the name of his brother - Rajesh Kuvadia, one of the members of the society, on a consent letter of the members of the society and the same was submitted to the office of Mumbai Municipal Corporation, N-Ward, knowing fully well that the said documents were forged and thus had cheated the corporation and the complainant. It is against this backdrop the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicant and two others. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and the complainant in person, I have perused the entire material placed before the court. It appears, the document allegedly forged was prepared sometime in February, 2007, whereas the offence was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant on 11.2.2009. The development which commenced on the basis of the resolution passed by the General Body meeting has been completed in February, 2009. Mr.Ashok Kuvadia, the complainant in person, submitted that the relevant documents, so far, have not been handed over by the society to the investigating officer and, therefore, if the bail is granted to the applicant there is every possibility that those documents, which need to be attached to prove the changes against the applicant, will never come forward. Mr. Gupte, learned senior counsel 3 3 3 for the applicant, on instructions, submitted that the society in writing has informed to the investigating officer that the entire record of the society has either been destroyed in floods or lost in 2005, for which a complaint was lodged by the society. Thus, it is a clear stand of the society that they do not possess the original documents. Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P., on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has already approached the Corporation for procuring copies of the relevant documents in order to prove the charge against the applicant. Keeping that in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, continuing detention of the applicant is not necessary, inasmuch as he doesn’t possess the original record of the society. Hence the following order: . The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.35,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to the conditions that he shall report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 10 am and 11 am till filing of the charge sheet. The application is disposed of. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 4 4 4 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)