1 ABAG-206.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.206 OF 2011 Prashant Mahadev Nagarkar .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2011 Uddhav Narayan Kumbhar .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri U.B. Nigot for the Applicant in CA-206/11. S/Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel, with H.A. Mundargi for the Applicant in ABA-222/11. Shri V.V. Purwant for the original complainant. Ms Alpa T. Javeri, APP, for the State in both applications. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: APRIL 06, 2011 P.C: 1. These two applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by the purchasers of certain pieces of land from Kisan 2 ABAG-206.11 Mahadu Waghmare, Shankar Mahadu Waghmare and Suman Baban Thigale by separate sale deeds. Kisan, Shankar and Suman are distant relations of the first informant. The lands in question originally belonged to one Tukaram Maruti Waghmare who had a daughter by name Tarabai. Tarabai had three sons, two of whom died without marrying. The first informant is the widow of the third son. Kisan, Shankar and Suman, who are distant relations, posed that Tukaram had no other heirs and therefore they were the owners of the properties, got their names mutated in the revenue records and then sold the properties to the present applicants by separate sale deeds in the year 2003-2004. The first informant filed an appeal against the mutation effected, which was allowed on 31-3-2008. The Collector confirmed this order on 31-3-2010. On 4-6-2010 parts of these lands have been sold by the complainant to one Popatseth. Therefore, the lands came to be recorded in the name of Popatseth in the revenue records. That mutation entry was challenged by the applicant-Uddhav Narayan Kumbhar and others and on order dated 9-1-2009, that entry was cancelled. 2. The vendors of the applicants, namely, 3 ABAG-206.11 Kisan and Shankar have already been admitted to anticipatory bail. The applicants contend that it is not that they forged any documents or set-up any holder of power of attorney on behalf of the first informant. They had purchased the lands from the persons who proclaimed themselves to be the owners and whose names were found in the revenue records. Whether these persons had committed any wrong or misrepresented to the authorities would be a different question. It cannot be said that the applicants were involved in playing any fraud by creating any false documents or making any misrepresentation and therefore the applicants claim to be admitted to bail pending the investigation. 3. The learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the first informant submit that the applicant-Prashant Mahadev Nagarkar in Criminal Application No.206 of 2011 is a stamp vendor who prepared the Will of Tarabai, the mother in-law of the first informant. This Will was also contested by one Suresh Taye who had attested another Will not connected with the matter, executed by one Trimbak Ramchandra Nagarkar in favour of Prashant Nagarkar. They submit that Suresh Taye is a witness of the 4 ABAG-206.11 applicants and the applicants seem to be in the habit of forging false Wills. This has no bearing on the present case where both Nagarkar and Kumbhar, the applicants, have purchased the properties by registered documents from the persons who had not posed as holders of power of attorney or any other person than they themselves while executing the documents. They have been admitted to bail. It is, therefore, not clear as to what purpose would be served by subjecting the applicants to custodial interrogation. Therefore, the applicants in both these cases, in the event of their arrest in C.R. No.14 of 2011 of Khed (Rajgurunagar) Police Station, Pune, be released on bail on their on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.50,000/- per person on the condition that the applicants shall report at the police station concerned on 11-4-2011 at 10:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter on every Sunday in between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. till the charge-sheet is filed and shall co-operate with the investigation. 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 him/her 5 ABAG-206.11 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 4. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 5. The applications accordingly stand disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)