{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1915 OF 2010 1. Fazil Ahmed s/o Ahmed Hussain Age-46 yeas, Occ-Service R/o Indira Nagar, Dharmabad, Dist-Nanded 2. Mohd Mustaque s/o Ahmed Hussain Age-40 years, Occ-Mechanic R/o Kunta Galli, Dharmabad, 3. Saleem Ahmed s/o Ahmed Hussain Age-40 years, Occ-Social worker, R/o Phule Nagar, Dharmabad Dist-Nanded 4. Mohd Pasha s/o Mohd Gous Age-48 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Dharmabad, Dist-Nanded 5. Saiprasad s/o Rajaram Yengandewar Age-38 years, Occ-Service R/o Dharmabad, Dist-Nanded 6. Mahadabai w/o Vithalrao Age-37 years, Occ-Household R/o Kundalwadi, Dist-Nanded APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded, 3. The Police Station Incharge {2} Police Station Dharmabad Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. A.N.Kakade, Advocate for the applicants Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondents No.1 to 3 State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.37/2010 registered with Dharmabad police station for an offence punishable u/s 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that during the May Vacations, vide order dated 14.05.2010, interim protection is granted to the applicants. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. 4. It appears that the complainant Afzal Ali Umer Ali, has lodged a private compliant bearing No.21/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad, against the present applicants. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicants have created false documents of gift showing to be executed by his mother in favour of applicant No.1. It is further alleged that {3} applicants No.2 to 6 are the witnesses for the said forged document. The said document is notarized and the complainant claims that the thumb impression on the alleged gift deed is not of his mother and the document is bogus one. It is worthy to be noted that though the said document is executed in the year 2007, yet the complaint is lodged in the year 2010. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is clear that the document on the basis of which applicant No.1 is claiming the property, as gifted in his favour by the mother of the complainant, is a notorized document. Whether the said document is genuine or not, can be decided by the civil court. The grievance of the complainant is of purely civil nature. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 14.05.2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicants are directed to cooperate the investigating agency and to attend the concerned police station, if required on written requisition by the IO. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1915-10