1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.652 OF 2011 Sanjay Dhanraj Gatagat ...Applicant. v/s. The State ...Respondent. Shri A.P.Mundargi i/by Niranjan Mundargi, advs. For the applicant. Smt. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.678 OF 2011 Himmatbhai Ratanshi Patel ...Applicant. v/s. The State ...Respondent. Shri A.P.Mundargi i/by Niranjan Mundargi, advs. For the Applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/ State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5653 OF 2010 Suresh Govind Parmar ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Shri Sachin Thombhare, adv. For the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5801 OF 2010 1 Ramchandra Nivrutti Kadam 2 Balkrishna Nivrutti Kadam 3 Machindranath Nivrutti Kadam 2 4 Baban Nivrutti Kadam 5 Kusumbai Maruti Jambulkar 6 Dwarkabai Devram Kate ...Applicants. v/s. The State & Anr. ..Respondents. Shri C.K.Pendse, adv. For the applicants. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. Shri Y.M.Nakhwa for the R.No.2/UOI. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2011 Anant Chandrakant Dangat ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Shri A.P.Mundargi i/by Prashant Patil, advs. For the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.97 OF 2011 Shirish Prabhakar Dasnurkar ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2011 3 Shirish Prabhakar Dasnurkar ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Ms Kalyani Pathak, adv. For the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2011 Baban Sahadu Chakankar ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2011 Nivrutti Sahadu Chakankar ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Shri S.V.Kotwal i/by M.S.Mohite, advs. For the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2011 Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati ..Applicant. v/s. 4 The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2011 Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati ..Applicant. v/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Shri M.S.Mohite, adv. For the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2011 Ulhas Balkrushna Dholepatil ..Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Shri A.P.Mundargi i/by Avinash Kamkhedkar, advs. For the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.695 OF 2011 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.696 OF 2011 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.697 OF 2011 Ramesh Popat Giramkar ...Applicant. v/s. 5 The State and Anr. ..Respondents. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.698 OF 2011 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.699 OF 2011 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.700 OF 2011 Sharad Subrao Kokate ..Applicant. v/s. The State and Anr. ..Respondents. Shri Vikas Shivarkar, adv. For the applicant. Shri Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the State. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.717 OF 2011 Shankar Waman Jadhav ..Applicant. v/s. The State ...Respondent. Mr. A.P.Mundargi i/by Ashish Sawant ,advs. For the Applicant. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 30 , 2011. P.C. 1 In all these applications, applicants have sought anticipatory bail in different cases registered by police under Sections 420, 467, 468, 6 471, 472, 201 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. on the complaints lodged by the Competent Authority of Pune Urban Agglomeration with the allegation that U.L.C. Orders , i.e., the orders granting exemption from the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act (In brief ‘ULC Act’) in respect of certain lands were forged. Offences are being investigated by the State CID. 2 According to the prosecution, relevant files were collected from the office of Pune Municipal Corporation, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, the Collector , Pune and City Survey Officer . All the files were sent to Tehsildar, Pune Urban Agglomeration for the purpose of verification of original records. The then Collector vide the order/letter dated 21.2.2007 informed the State CID that on verification out of 11 files of Pune Municipal Corporation, 8 ULC orders and out of 4 files of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, 3 ULC orders were found to be forged. Thereafter, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra decided to transfer all the matters pertaining to forged ULC orders for preliminary enquiry to Urban Development Department. Thereafter, for the purpose of preliminary enquiry by the order dated 23.7.2009, the Government of Maharashtra appointed One Man Committee comprising Mr. Sudhakar Joshi, I.A.S. (Retired). The 7 Committee after preliminary enquiry submitted a report that 29 ULC orders were found to be forged. On the basis of that, actions were taken and criminal cases have been registered. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State and perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the prosecution, several documents relied upon by the applicants, different development agreements executed between the owners of the land and the developers and other relevant material. 4 It is revealed that in Crime No.488 of 2010 registered at Pimpri Police Station , the land belongs to Ramchandra N. Kadam and his family members, who are applicants in Criminal Application No. 5801 of 2010. They had entered into development agreement with Suresh Govind Parmar, who is applicant in Criminal Application No. 5653 of 2010. As per that agreement, owners of the land received specified amount as consideration and transferred all the development rights to the said Suresh Parmar, who is builder-cum-developer. They also executed irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Suresh Parmar. Said development agreement and the Power of Attorney clearly reveal that owners of the land had not reserved any rights in the said property with them. After having received the consideration amount, 8 responsibility of obtaining necessary permissions, orders, etc. as per law, including orders under the ULC Act, was the responsibility of builder- cum-developer, i.e., Suresh Parmar. He was to develop the property, make construction, sell the property to others and to make earnings out of the same. He was aware that several permissions and orders were required including order under ULC Act. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, prima-facie it appears that the bogus ULC orders in respect of that land , must have been obtained by said Suresh Parmar with the help of others, namely, co-accused Shashikant Dudhare, who is said to be agent of Suresh Parmar. Shashikant has been arrested by the police. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of Crime No.488 of 2010, in my opinion, applicants Ramchandra Nivrutti Kadam and others , who are the original owners may be granted anticipatory bail but anticipatory bail can not be granted to Suresh Parmar, who in collusion with other co-accused , prima-facie appears to have committed offence. 5 Same logic will have to be applied to Criminal Application Nos.652 of 2011 and 678 of 2011 arising out of crime no.35 of 2011 registered at Swargate Police Station. In this case, Sanjay Dhanraj Gatagat, who is applicant in Criminal Application No.652 of 2011 was 9 the original owner of the property and he had executed development agreement as well as irrevocable power of attorney in favour of M/s Vishwa Developers through partners Himmatlal Ratanshi Patel, who is applicant in Criminal Application No.678 of 2011. Facts being identical, Sanjay Dhanraj Gatagat may be granted anticipatory bail but that facility can not be given to Himmatlal Patel, who is developer-cum-builder and who appears to have obtained the bogus ULC orders. 6 In Criminal Application No.717 of 2011 arising out of crime no.487 of 2010, applicant Shankar Waman Jadhav is also owner of land and he had executed development agreement and irrevocable power of attorney in favour of Manish Vasant Kulkarni and Jagdish Bhimji Rathod partners of M/s Yogiraj Construction. In this case, he did not receive any specified amount as consideration but was to get 40% of the built up area of the construction as consideration. However, as per the development agreement as well as irrevocable power of attorney executed by him, the development, obtaining necessary orders and permissions, including orders under the ULC Act, and following due procedure of law was responsibility of developer. The alleged bogus ULC orders were obtained by the partners of M/s Yogiraj Constructions with the help of some persons, who were said to be agents, working in the field and some of 10 whom are already arrested. In my opinion, the case against Shankar Waman Jadhav can not be distinguished from the case of Sanjay Gatagat and Ramchandra Nivrutti Kadam with others and, therefore, Shankar Waman Jadhav may also be granted anticipatory bail. 7 Criminal Application No.99 of 2011 is filed by Baban Sahadu Chakankar in Crime No.249/2010 and Criminal Application No. 100 of 2011 is filed by his brother Nivrutti Sahadu Chakankar in Crime No.250 of 2010. In these two cases, it appears that their father had submitted necessary returns under the ULC Act a way back in 1976 or so and their land was found to be exempted and not surplus. The land in respect of which alleged bogus ULC orders are obtained, are small pieces of land and they have constructed their own residential houses on the said land. It appears that when they wanted to make construction, they were informed that in view of the change in the master plan, they were required to obtain ULC order and, therefore, they approached some agent in the field for completing procedure and the agent secured orders for them, which turned out to be bogus. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, these two applicants may be granted anticipatory bail as in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the these persons will not be necessary. 11 8 Criminal Application Nos. 97 and 98 of 2011 filed in Crime Nos.251 and 254 of 2010 by the applicant Shirish Prabhakar Dasnurkar, who is an architect, the applicant is neither owner nor builder nor developer of the property. He is a professional architect. Allegation against him is that he had submitted plans to the Pune Municipal Corporation for permission for construction of buildings on behalf of the builders. While submitting application for construction, he also submitted two ULC orders, which were found to be bogus. According to him, he was not concerned in obtaining or securing ULC orders. Builder had given ULC orders to him alongwith other documents. He being professional architect only prepared and submitted the plan to the Municipal Corporation for sanction. Prima-facie, there appears substance in his contention and, therefore, in my opinion, his custodial interrogation is not required, therefore, he may also be granted anticipatory bail. 9 In Criminal Application No.96 of 2011 in crime no.252 of 2010 and in Criminal Application No.112 of 2011 in crime no.255 of 2010, applicants are themselves owners and also developers of land. They appear to have secured or procured bogus ULC orders for development of lands with the help of certain agents. They themselves 12 are beneficiaries of these orders. 10 In Criminal Application No.102 of 2011 arising out of crime no.251 of 2010 and in Criminal Application No.103 of 2011 arising out of Crime No.254 of 2011, applicant is developer-cum-builder. He had obtained development rights from its original owners and he also secured or procured bogus ULC orders for the development of that property and constructed a huge building on one of the properties. In my opinion, he also can not be given benefit of anticipatory bail. 11 Criminal Application Nos.695, 696, 697, 698, 699 and 700 of 2011 are filed by two persons in three different cases. Out of those two applicants, applicant Sharad B. Kokate is developer and holder of Power of Attorney. He had obtained development rights from the original owners and had secured or procured bogus ULC orders with the help of co-accused Sanjay Shinde, who has been arrested. Applicant Ramesh Popat Giramkar also worked as servant and agent for the said Sharad Subrao Kokate and helped him in obtaining these orders, therefore, these applicants are also not entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. 12 In view of the above, these applications stand disposed off as follows: (a) The Criminal Application No.5653/2010 stands rejected 13 (b) The Criminal Application No.5801 of 2010 is allowed. In the event of arrest, in crime no.488/2010 registered at Pimpri Police Station, the applicants Ramchandra Nivrutti Kadam, Balkrishna Nivrutti Kadam , Machindranath Nivrutti Kadam, Baban Nivrutti Kadam ,Kusumbai Maruti Jambulkar, Dwarkabai Devram Kate shall be released on their executing PR of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount with condition that they shall make themselves available to the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation. They shall fully co-operate with the police and shall not misuse the bail. (c) Criminal Application No.678 of 2011 stands rejected. (d) Criminal Application No. 652 of 2011, applicant Sanjay Dhanraj Gatagat, in the event of arrest in crime no.35/2011 registered at Swargate Police Station be released on his executing PR of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall make himself available to the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation. He shall fully co-operate with the police and shall not misuse the bail. (e) Criminal Application No.717 of 2011 is allowed. In the 14 event of arrest in crime no.487/2010 registered at Pimpri Police Station , the applicant shall be released on his executing PR of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall make himself available to the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation. He shall fully co-operate with the police and shall not misuse the bail. (f) Criminal Application No.99 of 2011 and Criminal Application No.100 of 2011 are hereby allowed. The applicants, Baban Sahadu Chakankar and Nivrutti Sahadu Chakankar in Criminal Application No.99 and 100 of 2011 arising out of Crime Nos.249 and 250 of 2010 respectively registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station be released on their executing PR of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount with condition that they shall make themselves available to the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation. They shall fully co-operate with the police and shall not misuse the bail. (g) Criminal Application No.97 and 98 of 2011 are hereby allowed. Applicant Shirish Prabhakar Dasnurkar in the above referred applications arising out of Crime Nos.251 and 254 of 2010 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station in the event of arrest be released on his 15 executing PR of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall make himself available to the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation. He shall fully co-operate with the police and shall not misuse the bail. (h) In view of the above, Criminal Application Nos.96/2011 and Criminal Application No.112 of 2011 stand rejected. (i) Criminal Application No.102 of 2011 and 103 of 2011 stand rejected. (j) Criminal Application Nos.695, 696,697,698,699 and 700 of 2011 stand rejected. 13 The learned counsel for some of the applicants want that ad- interim protection granted earlier be continued for sometime. Request turned down. 14 Observations made in this order are prima-facie for the purpose of deciding applications for anticipatory bail and shall not come in a way for deciding applications for regular bail. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)