1 ABA 952, 955 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL AANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.952 OF 2011 Subhash Yeshwant Dhumal .. Applicant. -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. with CRIMINAL AANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.955 OF 2011 Madanmohan M. Thakore .. Applicant. -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. M. S. Mohite with Mr. Prashant P. Patil for applicant in Application No.952 of 2011 Mr. K.S. Patil, with Mr. Praveen Padave, for the applicant in Application NO.955 of 2011. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent State in both the applications. WordProcessor(Uniplex or Office or PDF): PDF No. of Pages: CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 24th November, 2011 P.C. 1. Leave to amend the name of applicant in Application NO.955 of 2011. 2. These are two applications for anticipatory bail by two persons, who are alleged to have participated in duping complainant Kisan Daulatrao Sonawane, by making him part 2 ABA 952, 955 OF 2011 with sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- for purchase of piece of land adjacent to his land, from one Saraswatibai Paranjape. The land admeasuring 154 acres is admittedly tenanted, even to the knowledge of the complainant. He claims that in August, 2010, Dashrath Subhedar Chavan and Chandrakant Sampat Chavan came to him and stated that the land of Saraswati was to be sold and Adv. Manas Thakore, knew about all this. Complainant then went to the office of Manas Thakore, who stated that he had traced whereabouts of Saraswatibai and that he would complete the transaction. Price was settled at Rs.3,00,00,000/-, out of which 1.5 crores were to be paid to said Saraswatibai and Rs.1.5 crores to the tenants. Accordingly a registered sale deed was executed on 30.9.2010 in favour of the complainant. At time of execution of sale deed Narayan Parvati Bhilare and Eknath Raut had identified said Saraswatibai before the Sub Registrar. 3. Before this on 24th September, 2010, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid to Adv. Manas Thakore presumably out of his commission of Rs.30,00,000/- for that transaction. A further sum of Rs.70,00,000/- was also paid to Adv. Manas Thakore, in presence of Narayan Bhillare, Eknath Raut and the applicant. At the time of execution of sale deed impostor Saraswatibai is alleged to have come in the car of Subhash Dhumal. Saraswatibai had in fact expired in the year 1943. 4. After this Dashrath Chavan and Chandrakant 3 ABA 952, 955 OF 2011 Chavan were alleged to have been pressurized by some 31 persons, who had no connection with the land and Dashrath Chavan and Chandrakant Chavan, are alleged to have paid Rs. 63,00,000/- to those persons and obtained notarized consent deeds. Thereafter some other persons filed complaint to the Revenue Department alleging these persons had received moneys from Chandrakant and Dashrath Chavan, alleged that the impostor had executed sale deed in favour of complainant. Thereafter Pradeep Sonawane, Bhalchandra Sonawane, and others were stated to have filed complaints to the Revenue Department, police and C.B.I. To save the complainant from the harassment by these departments, Adv. Manas Thakur and his father Adv. Madanmohar Thakur, Subhash Dhumal and some others are stated to have received Rs.77,00,000/- in cash between 22.10.2010 to 16.2.2011. The details about payment made to each of those persons is, however, missing from the complaint and the learned APP, even after instructions from the Investigating Officer is unable to state as to which are those persons and as to what the amounts are paid. Curiously thereafter the complainant got executed an agreement of sale in respect of the same property from the heirs of Saraswatibai on 19th May, 2011, which recites that the complainant had been duped while executing sale deed dated 30th September, 2010. This agreement is for sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-. 4 ABA 952, 955 OF 2011 5. The complainant had first made a report on 23rd March,2011 at Rajgadh Police Station, Tal. Bhor, District: Pune, against 42 persons which include Dashrath Chavan and Chandrakant Chavan and several Sonawanes, but not the present two applicants. 6. Thereafter on 17th October, 2011 complaint was made at Sahakar Nagar Police Station on the allegations that the entire incident of cheating took place in the house of complainant which falls within the jurisdiction of Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune and Sahakar Nagar police station, has now initiated action against two applicants, who apprehend arrest. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Adv. Manas Thakore was supposed to be involved in the said transaction, has been arrested. It is not known as to what is the exact role of Madanmohan Thakore, who is father of Adv. Mnas Thakore. There is nothing in first information report to show that applicant Madanmohan Thakore had actually received any sum. As far as Subhash Dhumal is concerned, he had not identified the impostor of Saraswatibai at the time of execution of registered sale deed. In any case the complainant is a neighbouring landlord and therefore should have ordinarily known the situation of the land as also about the owners of the land. Considering the nature of allegations 5 ABA 952, 955 OF 2011 made against two applicants, applicants' being in custody pending investigation may not at all be necessary. Therefore, in the event of their arrest, in connection with C . R.No.430 of 2011, registered at Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by each of them with one or more solvent sureties in the sums aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/- by each of them on the following conditions:- i) The applicants shall make themselves available on 1st December, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii) The applicants shall also furnish their mobile telephone numbers and addresses and other details to the investigating officer. iii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iv) The applicants shall not leave India without the 6 ABA 952, 955 OF 2011 previous permission of the trial Court. v) 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. vi) Both the applications are disposed of . (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)