[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.874 OF 2008 Dilip Babulal Tapadia ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.A.P.Mundargi senior counsel with Mr.Niranjan Mundargi Advocate for Applicant Mr.A.H.H.Ponda Advocate with Mr.Hitesh Jain with Mr.Subhash Jadhav i/b ALMT Legal for Complainant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned advocate for the original complainant. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No. 48 of 2008 of Deccan Police Station, Pune. The said case is under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r.w. 34 and 511 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant is one of the partners of Mangalmurti Properties Firm. [-2-] He called one of the trustees of the trust to his office and assured him that he will give him compensation regarding TDR. Memorandum of Understanding and Power of Attorney came to be executed of the said trustee. The prosecution case is that agreement was entered into for TDR only in respect of 71 acres and 31 gunthas of land of the said trust. The Trust owns 79 acres 30 gunthas of land. Despite agreement for 7 acres 31 gunthas of land, the applicant showed that he had the right in respect of 79 acres of 30 gunthas of land and prepared documents accordingly. When this fact came to the notice of the trustee, he got the said power of attorney cancelled and also issued notice in the newspaper however, despite cancellation of power of attorney, the applicant still represented to others that he had TDR in respect of the entire land of the trust which was 79 acres 30 gunthas. 4. In the year 1982 itself the trust had given the contract to A.B.Bhatt and Company which was lateron named as Senew Developers Company. The applicant without permission of the trust, had deposited Rs. 1 lakh in the account of the Trust in Dena Bank and on the strength of deposit of such money, the [-3-] applicant stated that he had the TDR rights to 79 acres 30 gunthas of land and on the strength of Rs.1 lakh which he deposited, the applicant caused obstruction in the development work carried out by Senew Developers Company. 5. The prosecution case is that the applicant forged some part of the power of attorney and he made some additions therein. There is also material on record to show that the applicant has been using power of attorney even after the death of the executant. Though the applicant has no concern with the trust property, even then the applicant is getting papers processed by putting the case before various forums on the basis of forged power of attorney. 6. In my view, the material on record is such as to point out the accusing finger towards applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to [-4-] the applicant. 7. Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. On the oral application on behalf of applicant, applicant is granted time upto 31.7.2008 to surrender. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]