1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3164 OF 2009 Gulabchand Sardas and anr. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sharmila Kaushik and Mr. R. Satyanarayanan for the Applicants. Mr. A.P.Mundergi, Sr. Advocate i/by Karan Mehta and Rajesh Babar for the original complainant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP. For the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 8th April, 2010 PC : 1 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant No.1 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court in this very application by earlier order dated 17.8.2009 and therefore, this application remains only to be considered in so far as applicant No.2 is concerned. 2 2 The applicants are shown as an accused in C.R.No. 226/2009 registered by Andheri West Police Station, subsequently transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.2 and now re-numnbered as C.R.No.41/2009 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections-465,467,468,471,420,120B and 34 of the I.P.C. This Crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint dated 1.6.2009 filed by one Satyanarayan Pande. The complainant is the son of one Nandkishore Pande. His father was running a gold and silver business in the name of Bapulal Gulabchand at Jhaveri Bazar, Mumbai. There are four parters in the firm Bapulal Gulabchand namely Bapulal Zavar , Nandkishore Ghasiram Pande, Basantilal Fulchand Manavat and the Gulabchand Raghunathdas Sarda who is the applicant No.1 in this application. The complaint narrates that some time in 1949, a building was constructed consisting of ground and first floor having four flats bearing flat Nos. 49/1 to 49/4. In flat No. 49/1 tenant by name Anandilal Runghata was 3 residing, in Flat No.49/2 one Hiralal Sonthaliya was residing. In flat No.49/3 one Jivandas Bhayya was residing. The complainant s brother Jagdishchandra Pande who is now shown as accused in this offence and his mother were residing in Flat No.49/4. 3 That, in 1968 the tenant Anandilal Runghata sold the flat No.49/1 to the applicant No.1 in this application. In the year 2002, the flat No.49/4 was sold by Jivandas Bhayya to Smt. Kalpana Vijay Sarda who is daughter in law of the applicant No.1. In the year 2002, Flat No.49/2 was purchased by the complainant from the son of Hiralal Sonthaliya who had then expired. 4 It is contended that in July,2008 when the complainant attempted to build a wall to prevent the flooding by rain water he was obstructed by his brother. Therefore, he got suspicious and made enquiry with the society and according to him he 4 discovered that a Nomination form purported to be signed by Nandkishore Ghasiram Pande in favour of one of his brother Jagdish and his father erstwhile partner, applicant No.1 Gulabchand Sarda, purported to have been executed on 13.6.1973 had been filed. He also found out that this nomination form along with death certificate in the name of Nandkishore Gahsiram Pande and the share transfer form showing the name of the transferee a Nandkishore Ghasiram Pande was forwarded to the society and the society acted accordingly and mutated the names of the applicant No.1 and one of his brother Jagdish in the record of the society. In short, it is the case of the complainant that these documents are forged and fabricated and no name by name Nandkishore existed in any point of time. 5 Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant No.2 states that in so far as original nomination purported to have been executed in the 5 year 1973, his client is not signatory to the same as a witness or otherwise. In so far as share transfer form executed in Jan.1994, upon taking instruction from his client who is present in court he states that, he has, in fact, signed this particular form and he does not deny the fact that he has signed as a witness. It is also noticed that the present applicant is not direct benificiary in the said flat. Even today admitted position is that he is residing with his father. In the background of this case, it is noted that the transfer of the flat from the name of the deceased on the strength of a nomination form does not preclude the real owners from asserting their rights and such nomination even if made cannot take away the rights of the real owners. All these documents are alleged to be forged in the complaint filed on 1.6.2009. The complaint thus pertains to documents which are admittedly executed prior to 1994. In my view, the entire dispute is in the nature of family dispute and the owners are not precluded from aserting 6 their rights in a court of law .Since the right through nomination form cannot preclude the owners and also in view of the fact that the present applicant have not denied his signature as witness on the share transfer form, the matter can proceed without his custodial interrogation. It is therefore, directed that in the event of his arrest in C.R.No.41/2009 registered by Economic Offence Wing, Unit-2, the applicant will be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he will report to the Investigating Officer once in a week on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed and thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating officer, in writing. Application is disposed off. 6 Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)