..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1788 OF 2008 1. Shri Kishore Kakumal Keswani, 2. Shri Anil Ashok Keswani, 3. Shri Ashok Kakumal Keswani, & 4. Shri Manohar Kakumal Keswani. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.360 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1788 OF 2008 1. Shri Kishore Kakumal Keswani, 2. Shri Anil Ashok Keswani, 3. Shri Ashok Kakumal Keswani, & 4. Shri Manohar Kakumal Keswani. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondent. And And And Anita Sunil Matai. ..Intervener. [Orig.Complainant] .... Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Counsel a/w. Ashutosh Gole, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.Ganesh Gole, Adv. for Intervener - orig.complainant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 2nd September, 2008. DATED : 2nd September, 2008. DATED : 2nd September, 2008. ..(2).. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Sr.Counsel for the Applicants, the learned Advocate for intervener-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-81 of 2008 of Ulhasnagar Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 420, 409, 467 of IPC. 3. The complainant is a young lady. Property bearing plot No.618(P) situated at Ulhasnagar was owned by her father. After the death of her father in 1995, the property came to be transferred in her name pursuant to orders of the High Court. On 17.3.2003 the complainant lady entered into an agreement with applicant No.1 for sale of the said plot of land for Rs.40 lakhs. By way of token, amount Rs.1,01,000/- was given by applicant No.1 and the rest of the amount was to be given after 3 to 4 months. However, even after four months had lapsed, the amount was not paid by applicant No.1. ..(3).. 4. On 20.1.2004 a power of attorney was got executed by applicant Nos.1 & 4 from the complainant. On the basis of the said document, applicant No.1 Kishore and applicant No.4 Manohar became the power of attorney holders of the complainant in respect of the very same plot of land. One agreement for sale was also got executed by applicant No.1 in respect of the very same plot of land wherein the price was shown as Rs.7 lakhs. However, at that time applicant No.1 told the complainant that the signature of his brother i.e. applicant No.4 Manohar is yet to be taken hence he took away the agreement for sale with him as well as the power of attorney. No copy of the said agreement or power of attorney was given to the complainant at that time. The complainant did not go anywhere for notarisation or registration of the agreement for sale or the power of attorney. 5. Thereafter, on 1.2.2005 the complainant issued a notice by UPC & RPAD through her Advocate to the accused informing that she has terminated the transaction and wants to cancel the power of ..(4).. attorney. Proclamation was also issued for cancellation of the power of attorney. She also published a notice in English in two newspapers about revocation of the power of attorney. The notice was published on 23rd February, 2005 in "Leader and "Nagar News". She did not receive any reply to the said notice from any of the accused persons. Nor any objection was taken by any of the accused. The complainant communicated these facts to the Tehsil Office and Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation on 7.3.2005. 6. On 27.12.2007 the complainant sold her property to one Sunil, Narayan and Anil by a registered sale-deed for Rs.42 lakhs. The name of the owner was changed after completing entire procedure. A letter to that effect has been issued to the aforesaid three persons by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter the applicant No.1 and other accused raised objection. Applicant Kishore stated that he had sold the plot to himself and the other applicants on the basis of the power of attorney dated 20.1.2004. At that time, the complainant came to know that applicant no.1 Kishore had executed three registered ..(5).. sale-deeds on 25.10.2007 wherein he has sold 560 sq.yards land in favour of his brother Ashok i.e. applicant No.3. By another sale-deed applicant Nos.1 & 4 i.e. Kishore and Manohar sold 565 sq. yard in favour of their nephew Anil i.e. applicant No.2. By the third sale-deed applicant no.1 sold the land to himself. It is an admitted fact that all these transactions were made in the capacity, by applicant Nos.1 and 4, as power of attorney holders of the complainant, relying on power of attorney executed on 20.1.2004. 7. It is the specific case of the complainant that she did not go for registration or attestation of the said agreement or power of attorney. However, the power of attorney as well as the agreement has been notarised before the notary. The learned APP has stated that though the applicants have attended the police station as directed, they have not cooperated with the investigation and they have not produced the original documents nor furnished the name and address of the notary before whom these documents were got notarised. ..(6).. 8. The power of attorney executed by the complainant was already cancelled by her. Notice had been given by her in the newspaper in respect of the same. Despite notice, no reply was given by the accused persons nor any objection was raised. These events had happened in the year 2005. Despite this, by using the very same power of attorney the applicants have sold the land to themselves or amongst themselves. The material on record clearly shows that the applicants have cheated a young lady of her ancestral property. 9. The learned APP has pointed out that though the applicants have reported to the police station, they are not cooperating with the investigation. Till today they have not produced the original power of attorney which has been misused by the accused persons. So also original of other documents have not been produced inspite of intimation in writing by the investigating agency. It is also seen that accused No.1 has threatened one Narayan who is the purchaser of the said plot of land from the complainant. N.C.No.663 of 2008 dated 3.6.2008 has been registered in respect of the incident wherein ..(7).. applicant No.1 has threatened Narayan Vasandani. All the applicants are closely related i.e. applicant Nos.1, 3 & 4 are brothers and applicant No.2 is the nephew of applicant Nos.1 & 4 and son of applicant No.3. 10. Mr.Gupte, the learned Sr.Counsel for the applicants submitted that as far as change of name in respect of the plot of land is concerned, the same was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said matter was decided in favour of the complainant. The applicants preferred an appeal against the said order which came to be dismissed. Mr.Gupte has contended that thereafter the applicants have preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner and they have got interim order of status-quo in the said matter. 11. It is seen that even before the S.D.O. and in the appeal the orders are in favour of the complainant. The material on record clearly shows that the power of attorney was cancelled by the complainant way-back in 2005, yet the applicants have used the very same power of attorney and have got sold the land to themselves. It is pertinent ..(8).. to note that in order to transfer the land the accused persons have not relied upon the agreement for sale dated 20.1.2004 but they have only relied on the power of attorney dated 20.1.2004. It is the specific case of the accused that they have sold the land to each other only on the basis of the power of attorney executed on 20.1.2004. The said power of attorney had already been revoked in 2005. In such circumstances, no sale of the land of the complainant on the basis of this power of attorney could have taken place in 2007. 12. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that it is a civil dispute and custody of the applicants would not be necessary as the investigation mainly pertains to documents. The material on record shows that the applicants have cheated a young lady of her property. The facts show element of forgery. The applicants are not co-operating with the investigation. The accused have also threatened persons connected with the said plot of land. In my view, if the applicants remain outside, they will certainly hamper the investigation. In my view, the FIR and the other material collected by the prosecution in the ..(9).. present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicants. The anticipatory bail is in the form of concession. In the backdrop of the facts of this case and the fact that the applicants are not cooperating with the investigating agency and the fact that witnesses are being threatened, therefore, on this ground also I do not feel it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Intervention application is also disposed of. 13. On request of learned Counsel for the applicants, applicants are granted time to surrender upto 4th September, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)