..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1720 OF 2008 1. Jayada Yusuf Shaikh, 2. Nasimbanu Kamal Shaikh, 3. Dastagir Daud Nannubhai Shaikh, & 4. Yusuf Issak Shaikh. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Ms.Racheeta Dhuru, Adv. for applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.88 of 2008 of Khadak Police Station, Pune. The said case is mainly under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 3. The complainant and the accused are relatives. They are joint owners of the plots City Survey No.175, 180 and 181 at Pune. The ..(2).. complainant along with his father, brother and sister are amongst 24 legal heirs of Mr.Usman Haidar Shaha who was the original owner of the said plots of land. The complainant came to know in the year, 2007 that in the said property 7/12 extract the names of the complainant, his father and brother and sister were deleted pursuant to sale-deed dated 10.8.2007. The complainant also came to know that on the basis of power of attorney dated 10.4.2007 sale of the land took place. It is the case of the complainant that the said power of attorney was forged. The said power of attorney has been purportedly executed by 24 legal heirs. In the present case the investigation is going on. Enquiry has been made with six persons out of 24 persons and they have denied executing such power of attorney. Moreover, the investigation shows that the power of attorney is signed by Notary Mr.V.N.Dhekale, but, its registered number is missing on the document. The investigation reveals that the power of attorney has been forged by affixing the photographs of the persons which were put on another agreement dated 19.11.2005 register No.294/N/2005. ..(3).. 4. The learned APP states that the custody of the applicants is necessary in order to seize the said power of attorney. The learned Advocate for the applicants state that the power of attorney has been handed over by the present applicants to the father of the applicants. However, the statement of Madhukar Kadam, who works in the Registration Department shows that the power of attorney was handed over to the present applicants. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that the sister of the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that such power of attorney was indeed drawn. So also affidavits have been filed by some other legal heirs whose names appear in the power of attorney. It is seen that there is a family dispute in relation to these plots between the applicants and the complainant who are closely related. Nasim is the sister of all the four applicants as well as the complainant. Some of the other persons who have filed affidavits are also closely related to the applicants. In such case, they are bound to side ..(4).. with the applicants. The fact remains that six persons in the said power of attorney have clearly stated that they have not executed such power of attorney. This shows that the present applicants have prepared a forged power of attorney. The material on record clearly implicates the applicants. 6. The learned APP has pointed out that the applicants are not co-operating with the investigation and they are avoiding producing the document before the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that unless these documents are produced, there is hardly any possibility to proceed ahead with the investigation in this case. In view of the submissions made by the learned APP it is seen that there is a non cooperation on the part of the applicants. This can also be a good ground to reject the anticipatory bail application. 7. Moreover, in my view, the FIR and the other material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicants. The Apex ..(5).. Court has observed in the decision of Directorate Directorate Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 8. On the request of the learned Advocate for the applicants, the applicants are granted time to surrender upto 30th August, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)