[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2771 OF 2008 Jayashree Pramod Joshi and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.J.Shekhar i/b Mr.J.Shekhar and Co. for Applicants Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 22, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 22, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 22, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.8 of 2008 of Deccan Police Station, Pune. The said case is under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. The applicant no.1 is the wife of applicant no.2. The prosecution case is that the applicant no.1 had entered into an agreement with the complainant to sell their bungalow for [-2-] Rs.48,51,000/-. The complainant was asked to pay amount of Rs.18,51,000/- which was paid by the complainant. Rs.30 lakhs was to be deposited in a joint account by the complainant. The case of the complainant is that though the amount of Rs.30 lakhs was deposited by him as agreed between him and the seller i.e. applicant no.1, yet the possession of the property was not given to him. 4. The case of the applicants is that Rs.30 lakhs was not deposited by the complainant as per the agreement and hence, possession of the property was not given to the complainant. As per the agreement executed between the complainant and applicant no.1 dated 28.11.2006, the complainant had to deposit an amount of Rs.30 lakhs on or before 15.8.2007. Clause 1 of the agreement provides that it would be open to the owner and the purchaser to decide mutually the mode of payment of the said amount of Rs. 30 lakhs as per their convenience. The learned advocate for the applicants admitted that it was mutually decided that the amount would be deposited in a cooperative bank in a joint account and not in joint escrow account as is stated in cause 1. The material on record shows that the [-3-] complainant had indeed handed over cheque dated 7.8.2007 for Rs.30 lakhs to the applicant no.1. The said cheque came to be deposited in a joint account in a cooperative bank on 11.8.2007. The joint account was in the names of complainant, his wife and applicant no.1. Thus, it is seen that as per the agreement executed on 28.11.2006, the complainant has carried out his part of the agreement, yet possession was not given by the applicant no.1 to the complainant. 5. As far as applicant no.2 is concerned, it is seen that he was instrumental in transferring the interest accrued on Rs. 30 lakhs which was deposited in the bank on 11.8.2007. The learned APP has placed reliance on the account opening form and the statement of the Manager of the Bank to show that written instructions were given by applicant no.2 to transfer the interest accrued on Rs.30 lakhs, to the Savings Bank Account of applicant no.1. Clause 2 of the Agreement dated 28.11.2006 provides that the owner shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.30 lakhs along with interest at the time of execution of the sale deed and hand over vacant and peaceful [-4-] possession of the property to the purchaser i.e. the complainant. Despite this clause in the agreement, the interest accrued was transferred at the behest of applicant no.2 to the Savings Bank Account of applicant no.1. This was done without consent of the complainant. 6. At this stage, it may be stated here that the applicants had preferred a writ petition before this Court. The said matter came up before the Division Bench. Initially after hearing the parties, in order dated 25.7.2008, the Division Bench observed that "we are convinced that this is a case in which investigation should go on. Therefore, except for arresting the accused, the respondents may proceed with the investigation and the petitioners shall, as and when called, attend the police station concerned for the purpose of co-operating during the investigation. If the petitioners do not co-operate in investigation, the learned Public Prosecutor may bring that to the notice of the Court". In the order dated 12.8.2008, the Division Bench observed that "Prima facie, we do not find a case for quashing the FIR which discloses commission of an offence". It was [-5-] further observed that "in the mean time, direction given by us on 25th July, 2008 that accused be not arrested is hereby withdrawn. If the police find it necessary to arrest all the accused in relation to investigation, they shall arrest them". 7. From the above facts, it is seen that the Division Bench after examining the matter in detail, prima facie came to the conclusion that the FIR discloses commission of offence. In the present case it is seen that one Mr.Prem Agarwal Advocate claiming to be the Law Officer in CID, Crime Branch, is interfering in the investigation of this case and threatening the police officers that he will save the accused. The learned APP has produced copy of the letter written by the Investigating Agency to the Director General of police on 5.8.2008 by which this position was brought to the notice of the Director General of Police. The learned APP has stated that pressurising tactics are being used by the applicants and thus obstruction is being caused in the investigation of this case. 8. The Division Bench has clearly observed that [-6-] the FIR discloses commission of an offence. On perusal of the material on record, I find it is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the applicants. The Apex Court in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 has observed that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, application is rejected. 9. At the request of learned advocate for the applicants, the applicants are granted time till 28.8.2008 to surrender. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]