1 criminal application no. 4708 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4708 OF 2010 Azad Rammurat Choudhary ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Deepak Tambe, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : OCTOBER 29, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicant is one of the accused in C.R. No. 162 of 2010 for the offences punishable under section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is the prosecution case that on 20.4.2010 the complainant, his brother along with witnesses Chavan and Shukla went to the flat of one Anita Kapoor for the purpose of purchasing the same. At that time the applicant posing himself as Shyam Sardarilal Kapoor, falsely represented to the complainant that he was the joint owner of the flat at C/601, Om Sai Aradhana Coop. Hsg. Society, Ashokban, Shivvallabh Road, Borivali East along with his wife Anita Kapoor. The 2 criminal application no. 4708 of 2010 co-accused had posed as Anita Kapoor. Another co-accused represented herself as Sangita Kapoor, sister-in-law of the applicant. All the three sold the flat to the complainant for the sum of Rs. 35 lacs. The entire amount had been paid by the complainant to the accused persons. The applicant by posing himself as Sham S. Kapoor not only got the documents executed but also the same got registered with the Sub Registrar's office. For that purpose, he got a PAN card in the name of Sham Kapoor fabricated. During the course of investigation, police have seized PAN card in the name as Sham Kapoor from the person of the applicant. The complaint shows active role played by the applicant in the commission of the offence. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the other co- accused having been released on bail the applicant be released on bail on the ground of parity. It appears that the woman posing as Sangeeta Kapoor has been released on bail. However, the woman posing as Anita Kapoor has been denied bail. Hence the question of parity does not arise. 3. The learned A.P.P. states that the applicant has no fixed place of residence in Maharashtra. He is a resident of U.P. Therefore, the 3 criminal application no. 4708 of 2010 prosecution apprehends that if the applicant is released on bail, he will abscond and will not be available for the trial. Considering the nature of allegations against the applicant and the role attributed to him in the complaint and the fact that he has no fixed place of residence in Maharashtra, application is rejected. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)