((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3711 OF 2006 Sanjiv Singh Narindar Singh Chadha Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.H.H.Ponda for applicant. Smt.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11th October 2006 PC : 1. The applicant is arrested in connection with MECR No.1 of 2006 alleging offences punishable under sections 192, 199, 463, 465, 467, 478, 475 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.. The applicant presently is in judicial custody post surrender and arrest on 9th August 2006. 2. It appears from the record that a complaint was lodged in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bandra, who passed an order under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing Bandra Police Station to register case and investigate the same. ((-2-)) 3. Now, the investigations are complete and charge sheet has been filed. 4. It appears that the learned Trial Judge although aware of the above facts, was inclined not to release the applicant on bail because in his opinion the applicant is adopting identical modus and is guilty of offences of similar nature which have been registered at Malbar Hill Police Station and Gavdevi Police Station. The learned Judge has opined that in today’s circumstances and when the property prices are high and immovable property is not easily available in Mumbai, persons like applicant managed to enter into some transaction and thus get into possession of prime property. 5. I have perused the complaint as also the order passed by learned Sessions Judge with the assistance of Shri Ponda. He submits that as far as CR registered at Malbar Hill Police Station is concerned, the same is now quashed. The applicant is in judicial custody in connection with the CR registered at Gavdevi Police Station. Barring these cases there are none others pending. The applicant has not been accused of ((-3-)) grabbing properties else where. 6. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that the offence is very serious and punishable with life imprisonment. Although investigations are complete, the learned Judge is right in denying bail to the applicant because the applicant would not be available. Further, the applicant’s version cannot be believed because the materials produced do not evidence that there was a genuine tenancy agreement between the complainant and the present applicant. 7. The complaint is filed on the basis that the complainant Nasim Bano had never entered into any tenancy agreement or inducted the applicant in the premises which are Flat No.10, Rohit Co-operative Housing Society, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. However, in the complaint itself it is mentioned that a suit is filed in the Small Causes Court being RAD Stamp No.1059 of 2004 on the basis that the applicant is a tenant in respect of this premises and interim injunction has been granted in the said suit on the strength of the same documents. The complaint itself points out that there are receipts but it is alleged that they are forged. It is also alleged ((-4-)) that the cheques numbering in all 21 paid to the complainant, have never been received by her or credited to her account. 8. In my view, when such is the basis of the complaint, then the version of both sides is yet to be tested. The fact remains that the investigations are complete and save & except the case where the applicant is in judicial custody, nothing has been pointed out to me which would enable me to to arrive at a conclusion that the applicant would not be available at the stage of trial. By imposing stringent and appropriate conditions the applicant’s application for bail can be considered. Hence, following order. 9. ORDER :- (i) The applicant shall be enlarged on bail in connection with MECR No.1 of 2006 registered at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand only) with one or two local sureties in the like sum; (ii) The applicant shall report to Bandra Police Station once a week till conclusion of trial; ((-5-)) (iii) The applicant shall forthwith deposit his passport, if any, with the investigating authority; (iv) The applicant shall forthwith furnish his residential address where he proposes to reside after bail and during pendency of trial to the investigating agency, and without prior intimation to the investigating agency he shall not change his residence; (v) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with prosecution evidence; (vi) The applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the trial. Any attempt by the applicant to delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation of bail; (vii) Any observation/s made in this order shall not be constructed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial; ((-6-)) (viii) Application is disposed of in above terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)