- 1 - aba622.664 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.622/2011 Shri Sharad Govindrao Bagrao ... Applicant vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondents .. Mr.Ravindra Sakpal for Applicant Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa APP for State with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.664 OF 2011 Abdul Sami Aish, Mohammad Khan .. Applicant vs 1.State of Maharashtra 2.Mrs.Shilpa Sharad Bagrao 3.Kaluram Govind Bagrao 4.Bhima Mahadeo Ghaiwat .. Respondents ... Mr.Dinesh Mota for Applicant Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa APP for State CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 24th August, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Application No.622 of 2011 is filed by the Applicant Sharad Bagrao for anticipatory bail in - 2 - aba622.664 C.R.No.M/04/2011 registered with Kinhvli police station under sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 413,471, 120 (B) and 34 of the Indian penal Code. 3. In the said matter, one Shilpa wife of Sharad Bagrao and other two persons who were said to be the attesting witnesses of the Sale Deed executed by Sharad Bagrao in favour of his wife Shilpa were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The original Complainant has filed Application No. 644 of 2011 for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to those three persons. 4. The case of the Complainant in brief is that certain agricultural lands belong to one Pandurang Nahvi. Accused Sharad Bagrao claimed to have obtained Power of attorney from the said Pandurang Nahvi for disposal of the said property. On the basis of that, Sharad Bagrao entered into a contract for sale of the land in - 3 - aba622.664 favour of the Complainant for consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-, out of that he received Rs. 15,25,000/- from the Complainant. Later on he refused to fulfil the contract and to execute Conveyance Deed. Then it was revealed that Sharad Bagrao had transferred the said land in the name of his wife Shilpa and two other accused persons Kaluram Bagrao and Bhima Ghaiwat had attested these conveyance deed. It is the contention of the Complainant that Sharad Bagrao played a fraud and cheated him and made him to part with money without intention to fulfill the contract and knowing these facts fully,other three accused conspired to cheat him. 5. It is not in dispute that the land has been transferred by Sharad Bagrao in favour of his wife Shilpa. It is also not in dispute that the amount received by him has not been repaid to the Complainant. Prima facie it is clear that Sharad Bagrao played a fraud and cheated the Complainant. Learned counsel contended that - 4 - aba622.664 certain conditions of the contract were not fulfilled by the Complainant and therefore Conveyance deed could not be executed. It needs to be noted that on 8.8.2011 a statement was made that he was willing to deposit an amount of Rs.15,25,000/- with interest thereon within one week. In view of that statement, some protection against arrest was given to him. However, he did not deposit the amount and interim protection was vacated by order dated 18.8.2011. 6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and conduct of Applicant-Sharad Bagrao, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to him. However, as far as other three accused persons are concerned, they stand on a different footing. It is possible that Sharad Bagrao might have executed the sale deed in favour of his wife Shilpa as he may be dominant member of his family. Other two persons, who were the attesting witnesses, may not be even aware of the offence of cheating - 5 - aba622.664 committed by him. Therefore, I do not see any reason to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to those three accused persons. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Applications stands rejected. J.H.BHATIA, J