1 ABA 971 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.971 OF 2011 Mohammed Yusuf Chaudhary .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ganesh Gole, for the applicant. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, for the first informant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 2nd December, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an an application for anticipatory bail by one Mohmmed Yusuf Chaudhary, who claims to have obtained an agreement of sale of property from one Ramubai Sundar Patil, the heir of Kana Patil for a sum of Rs.88,00,000/-. Ramubai herself obtained relinquishment deed from the other heirs Sakrubai @ Chandra Koli and Kundalik Kana Patil- the first informant on whose report an offence has been registered. This registered relinquishment deed itself refers to 1100 sq. meters area. Agreement of sale also refers to an area of 1100 sq. meters. The applicant issued public notices in respect of 1100 sq meters of the land was sought to be purchased by him. These notices were published in the year 2 ABA 971 OF 2011 2009. There is no dispute that Ramubai Patil had received a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- and her brother Kundalik Kana Patill, had received an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. Bearer cheques for Rs.18,00,000/- which had been issued, are stated to have not been paid to Ramubai. But those cheques, which had been made available for my perusal, show an endorsement of discharge by the applicant or his employees and not that of Ramubai or Kundalik Kana Patil. Learned counsel for the applicant states that this is because cheques drawn on "self" has to be signed by drawer only to enable the banker to pay the amount. All the same, the learned counsel for the applicant states that without prejudice to his rights and defences since Ramubai has also filed a suit before the Civil Court, he would deposit a sum of Rs.45,50,000/- (being the amount payment whereof is disputed by the first informant) with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel, District: Raigad, to show his bonafides. Though the learned APP as well as learned counsel for the first informant have very strong objection, it is interesting to note that the grievance of the first informant is not that agreement was not executed but only about area which is mentioned in the agreement. The first informant seems to knows English since he has signed in English. In view of this applicants being in custody for the purpose of investigation may not be necessary. The applicant be therefore released on bail in the 3 ABA 971 OF 2011 event of his arrest on his furnishing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sums aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/- on the following conditions :- i) The applicant shall deposit with the learned trial Magistrate a sum of Rs.45,50,000/- within a period of two weeks, which amount the learned Magistrate shall invest in the State Bank of India, in interest earning deposits and shall himself deal with the same at the end of the trial & as per result of the trial, or should the Civil Court so order, remit the same to the Civil Court before whom suit is pending, if the Civil suit is decided earlier. ii) The applicant shall make himself available on 7th December, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer. iii) The applicant shall also furnish his mobile telephone number and address and other details to the investigating officer. iv) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 4 ABA 971 OF 2011 v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. vi) The order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if chargesheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in A.I. R. 2011 (SC) 312. vii) The application stands disposed of. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)