1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2544 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Vs. Satish Tukaram Kedari .. Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2567 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Vs. Ramesh Dagadu Kedari .. Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2557 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Vs. Chandrashekar Parshuram Pawaskar .. Respondent. Smt.P.P.Shinde APP for the State. Shri S.P.Kadam for respondent in Cri.Appln.No.2544/10. Shri Pankaj D.Purwe i/b J.B.Kotecha for respondent in Cri.Appln.No.2557/10. Shri A.M.Savagare i/b S.S.Patwardhan for the respondent in Cri.Appln.2567/10. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 4, 2011. PC: 1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent-accused. S 2 2. The respondents – Satish Kedari and Ramesh Kedari were granted anticipatory bail while respondent - Chandrashekar Pawaskar was initially granted anticipatory bail and then he was granted regular bail. By these three applications the State seeks cancellation of anticipatory/regular bail granted to the respondents. 3. As per the FIR lodged by one Madhusudan Chaskar, accused no.2 Satish Chandrakant Dalvi and accused no.3 – Yogesh Makkhi had played fraud and by cheating him and his family members, got signatures on power of attorney giving authority to Chandrashekar Pawaskar and Nitin More to dispose of the property of the complainant and his family members. In fact the signatures were obtained by representing that the document was being executed only for correction of earlier agreement for sale. On the basis of the said power of attorney Chandrashekar Pawaskar and Nitin More executed sale deed of property of the incumbent in favour of accused no.1 – Subhash Kadam. When these facts came to knowledge of the complainant, he lodged the FIR. As far as accused – Satish Kedari and Ramesh Kedari are concerned, they were attesting witnesses of the sale deed executed by Chandrashekar Pawaskar and Nitin More in favour of Subhash Kadam on the basis of power of attorney in their favour. Satish Kedari and Ramesh 3 Kedari were not witnesses to execution of the power of attorney in favour of Chandrashekar Pawaskar and Nitin More to transfer that property. Taking into consideration the role of Satish Kedari and Ramesh Kedari, I do see any valid reason to cancel anticipatory bail granted to them. 4. As far as Chandrashekar Pawaskar is concerned, he appears to be one of the main culprits alongwith Satish Chandrashekar Dalvi, Yogesh Makkhi and Nitin More and possibily Subhash Kadam also. Learned A.P.P. makes a statement that police have already submitted a proposal before the Government seeking approval to file application for cancellation of bail granted to Subhash Kadam. Learned A.P.P., on instructions, from the investigating officer, who is present in the court, makes a statement that police has no intention to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to Satish Chandrashekar Dalvi, Yogesh Makkhi and Nitin More because they were in police custody and after that regular bail was granted. As Chandrashekar Pawaskar and Nitin More had received consideration amount from Subhash Kadam while executing the sale deed in his favour on the basis of forged power of attorney, the application for cancellation of bail against Chandrashekar Pawaskar needs to be heard alongwith the application which may be filed for cancellation of bail 4 granted to Subhash Kadam. 5. In view of above Criminal Application No.2554 of 2010 and 2567 of 2010 are hereby rejected. 6. Criminal Application No.2557 of 2010 shall remain pending. Learned A.P.P. shall make statement about proposal for filing application for cancellation of bail granted to Subhash Kadam on the next date. Therefore, said application no.2557 of 2010 be listed on 21st March, 2011. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)