1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4450 OF 2006 IN ABA NO.1211 OF 2006 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4451 OF 2006 IN ABA NO.1200 OF 2006 Manish Karsandas Ved ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Subhash Jha i/b.M/s.Law Global, Advocate, for applicant Mr.V.M.Bhardwaj, Advocate, in Cri. Appln.No.4450 of 2006 for intervener Mr.S.V.Kotwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in Cri.Appln.No.4450 of 2006 Ms.M.V.Thakkar with Mr.Deepak Deshmukh i/b.M/s.Dave & Co., for respondent No.3 Mr.P.H.Goswami, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in Cri.Appln.No.4451 of 2006 Smt.V.R.Bhosale, A.P.P, for the State in both applications CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2008 P.C. 2 . The applicant Manish Karsandas Ved filed proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th Court, Vikroli, Mumbai against his brother Pravin Karsandas Ved (Respondent No.2) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his Order dated 3rd October, 2006 directed Senior Inspector of Police, Pantnagar Police Station, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai to investigate the matter and submit his report on or before 4th December, 2006. The respondent No.2 apprehending his arrest moved pre-arrest bail application No.1211 of 2006 in the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his Order dated 20th October, 2006 directed to release respondent No.2 herein in the sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety, in the event of his arrest in MECR No.06-06 of Pantnagar Police Station. The accused (respondent No.2) was directed to attend office of the Investigating Officer as and when required. The order to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. 3 2. Kishor Karsandas Ved (respondent No.2) and Kiran Hansraj Ved (respondent No.3) in Criminal Application No.4451 of 2006 moved to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the application No.1200 of 2006 passed an order to release applicant/accused, in the event of arrest. The order to remain in force till opinion of the Finger Print Expert's obtained by the Investigating Officer. He also directed, if the opinion of the Finger Print Expert's is adverse to the applicant and I.O decided to arrest the applicant after obtaining said opinion, he shall not be arrested without giving 72 hours notice. 3. The complainant Manish Ved and accused Pravin are real brothers. While accused Kishor and Kiran are their cousins. Manish and Pravin are grand sons of one Govardhandas. The ancestral property in which Manish, his brothers Prakash, Pradeep and sister Malini with the accused Pravin have share, is allegedly sold to M/s.Nensee Construction Private Limited by Pravin fraudulently. According to complainant Manish, signatures of his two brothers, 4 sister Malini have been forged and all the forgery has taken place at the instance of accused Pravin. 4. It was canvassed by the complainant that Prakash, Pradeep and Malini were not in India on the date of when no objection letters were purported to be signed by them. The signature of the complainant Manish is superimposed from xeroxing and he has also not given any authorization in favour of either Pravin or Smt.Krishnaben (mother of the parties). 5. Insofar as role of Kishor and Kiran, the cousin brothers are concerned (Criminal Application No.4451 of 2006), it is alleged that they have conspired with Pravin in forging the documents. 6. Being aggrieved by the Order in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.1211 of 2006 and 1200 of 2006 the present applications are moved before this Court. 7. During the course of submissions it is pointed by 5 Mr.Subhash Jha that two employees in the office of Registrar who have allegedly contributed and conspired in forging of the Conveyance Deed were arrested including the attesting witnesses Ozha and they are released on bail. According to him, when these persons could be subject to arrest there was no reason or justification for the learned Sessions Judge entertaining pre-arrest bail application of Pravin when the accused Pravin is the main culprit in the matter for whose benefit the entire transaction Conveyance Deed came into force. I find substance in these aspects, and find it unconceivable to allow mater-mind & beneficiary of fraud to roam and dodge the investigator having armed with pre-arrest concession. 8. My attention is also invited to the affidavit of the investigator Chandrashekhar F. Gole, the Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing and he found some papers and the documents on verification do not tally. The property is conveyed at the very low price. NRI were not in India on the date of so called authority letter dated 15th March, 2000 and same has even been established from the respective passports that three NRI members of the family were, in 6 dark about the entire sale transaction which was apparently at the lower rate than prevailing Government as well as market rate. 9. During the investigation from Superintendent stamp information of sale of stamps used in this case is received and surprisingly, stamps were not issued in favour of receipients' name. The name of the original purchasers are Kalpesh Shah, K. Shivshankaran, Nimesh Shah and even, value of the stamp paper as per the said register was Rs.20/, 100/-, 20/- and 20/- respectively which has been changed to Rs.100/- and these stamps are shown in the name of Prakash Karsandas Ved, Pradeep Karsandas Ved, Kishor Karsandas Ved, Mrs.Malini Ved @ Smt.Malii Ajay Ved and Manish Karsandas Ved. 10. The statement of Ashok H. Gajaria, broker in the transaction revealed startling information, that over and above sale consideration in the agreement the purchaser has paid Rs.7,00,000/- to Prakash, Kishor and Kiran and also agreed for four flats on the said site, to be given to those persons and Madhavsingh G. Ved. 7 11. The accused Pravin denied these allegations by his affidavit. However, fact remains that the purchase of stamps as referred above demonstrate that there were forgery at the instance of Pravin for his self benefit. 12. Mr.Jha also took me to eleven Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court to impress his point, to cancel the liberty erroneously enjoyed by the respondent. 13. The registration of Conveyance Deed without following requisite statutory requirement points to nexus between accused and others and such sources could be known and identified only during custodial interrogation. The modus of super imposing signature of complainant, his two NRI brothers and sister is to be investigated. 14. Unless the accused Pravin is put in fetters and interrogated by the Police Officer, to reveal as to who provided stamp papers, from where the accused got it, who prepared the matters on the four 8 authority letters. The Bank Account of Smt.Krishnaben is operated by the accused Pravin in which huge amounts were deposited and systematically withdrawn. The entries are to be investigated. The siphoning of unaccounted amount of Rs.7 lacs is to be unearth. It is pertinent to note that Smt.Krishnaben is 76 years old, cannot properly walk and even does not understand any other language except signing in Gujrathi but accused has influenced her, as can be seen by even by appearance of Mr.Bhardwaj, Advocate. The implications of grant of pre-arrest bail in a matter of this magnitude has come as impediment in the smooth investigation. 15. Mr.Kotwal while opposing application invited my attention to the Judgment reported in AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 961 in the matter of The State through Delhi Adminstration v. Sanjay Gandhi. In that case, the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, cancellation of bail was sought. 16. The learned counsel relied on the Judgment in the matter of DOLAT RAM AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA, ( (1995) 9 1 Supreme Court Cases 349). The Hon'ble Lordships observed, bail granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. It was a case of Dowry death wherein it was pointed that the parents and brother of the husband, were living separately which was supported by ration card and therefore, the Hon'ble Lordship further observed that these circumstances were relevant for grant of anticipatory bail. 17. The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused Pravin has in fact a effect of impeding on going investigation and surprisingly, the other accused persons referred above having been put in arrest, shows the gravity in the matter, consequently, the accused Pravin in ordinary course could not have been allowed to roam free keeping the investigation to sit with folded hands. There is certainly abuse of the concession granted to the accused. I am satisfied that the various factors highlighted during arguments require custodial interrogation of Pravin. 10 18. Mr.Kotwal while opposing application invited my attention to the Judgment reported in AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 961 in the matter of The State through Delhi Adminstration v. Sanjay Gandhi. In that case, the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, cancellation of bail was sought. 19. The learned counsel relied on the Judgment in the matter of DOLAT RAM AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA, ( (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349). The Hon'ble Lordships observed, bail granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. It was a case of Dowry death wherein it was pointed that the parents and brother of the husband, were living separately which was supported by ration card and therefore, the Hon'ble Lordship further observed that these circumstances were relevant for grant of anticipatory bail. 11 20. The act of accused project the gravity of getting a false and fabricated Conveyance Deed executed in relation to the property having share, of the complainant Manish, his brothers Prakash, Pradeep and sister Malini, by creating forged documents of Authorities. The witnesses who had signed such authorization have clearly stated that they did not see the executants. Taking over all aspects of the matter, Anticipatory Bail Application granted in favour of the respondent No.2 /accused Pravin cannot further remain in force. 21. So far as the applicants in Criminal Application No.4451 of 2006 are concerned, they are having 1/3rd share in the property. There is nothing to demonstrate that they have forged documents or at this stage, co-ordinated with Pravin in getting foreged documents prepared. They have not so far violated the terms of grant of concession by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the concession granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not require any interference. 12 22. Order (i) Criminal Application No.4450 of 2006 moved for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Pravin Karsandas Ved is allowed. The order in the Anticipatory Bail Application No.1211 of 2006 dated 20th October, 2006 is set aside. (ii) The accused Pravin Karsandas Ved shall surrender before the concerned police upto 21st July, 2008. (iii) Criminal Application No.4451 of 2006 moved by the complainant is rejected and Anticipatory Bail Application granted in favour of Kishor and Kiran in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1200 of 2006 to remain in force with the conditions incorporated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)