1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3932 OF 2008 Rakesh Ranjan .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Sudeep Pasbola i/b Rahul Arote for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.63 of 2008 of Neral police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committing an offence under sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The applicant at the relevant time was working as the Asst.General Manager with M/s.Genom Biotech Pvt. Ltd. The Chairman of the said company Mr.Binod Singh wanted to purchase some lands in Neral and Karjat area in the name of his father Madheshwar Prasad Singh. In view thereof a Power of Attorney dated 15th March, 2007 was executed in favour of the applicant giving him power to acquire lands in the name of Madheshwar Prasad Singh. On the basis of the said power of attorney the applicant entered into 44 2 2 2 transactions in favour of Madheshwar Prasad Singh. It appears that Madheshwar Singh also wanted to purchase 5 acres of land in survey No.86. The landlords of the said land executed power of attorney in favour of Suryakant Singh, Manager, General Administration working with M/s.Genom Biotech Pvt. Ltd. According to the applicant this power of attorney was executed by the landlords in favour of Suryakant at the instance of Mr.Binod Singh since the applicant was not available at the relevant time. As against this, according to the complainant, Binod Singh never involved Suryakant Singh in the said transaction and he had never authorised him to get power of attorney in his favour from the landlords of the land Survey No.86. According to the complainant, the applicant and Suryakant Singh in collusion got the said power of attorney executed in favour of Suryakant, on the basis of which 5 acres of land out of Survey No.86 came to be transferred in the name of third party and thereby the applicant and Suryakant have committed the alleged offence. Apart from the other allegations, Madheshwar in his statement has stated that the applicant has not given an account of Rs.7,00,000/- which was paid to him in cash. I have perused the entire record. It is clear from the facts of the case that the power of attorney was executed in favour of the applicant and on the basis of said power of attorney the applicant entered into 44 transactions in respect of the lands 3 3 3 situated at Neral and Karjat. Keeping that in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the custodial interrogation in the present case would not be necessary. Hence I pass the following order: . In the event of arrest, the applicant to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount subject to condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every alternate day between 10 and 12 noon till 5th December, 2008 and thereafter on every 2nd and 4th Saturday between 10 and 11 am for a period of 90 days or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. This order of anticipatory bail shall remain in force till filing of the charge-sheet and 15 days thereafter. After filing of the charge-sheet, it would be open to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court and apply for regular bail. It is also open to the investigating agency to arrest the applicant, in the event the applicant does not co-operate with the investigation. The application is disposed of. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in 4 4 4 this order. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)