1crn2859-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2859 OF 2010 Arun Ramchandra Bhide. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.R.S. Datar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 29TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.13 of 2009 registered with Pali Sudhagad police station, District - Raigad for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Apparently, the present applicant is a practicing Advocate of Pali, District - Raigad and is a Notary appointed 1crn2859-10 2 by the Central Government and having registration No.854. 3. Allegations against the present applicant are that he is one of the conspirators with the other main accused persons and mainly with Jayant Balkrishna Deshmukh for said Jayant Deshmukh to get the power of attorney in his favour purported to have been given by 11 persons, joint owners of some immovable property including the complainant one Smt.Madhuri Sonalkar. 4. Gat No.486 of the immovable prooperty at Sudhagad was owned by said 11 persons. When the complainant wanted copy of the 7/12 extract regarding the said immovable property and when she enquired with the concerned Talathi office, it was revealed that the name of one Kevalchand Jain has been entered in the 7/12 extract as the person who has purchased the said Gat No.486. On further enquiry, it was found out that a notarized power of attorney was executed and notarized on 24.11.2007 wherein photographs of some unknown persons were put so far as six 1crn2859-10 3 owners including present complainant are concerned. Even their signatures were forged. Purportedly out of the same power of attorney, certain rights to deal with the immovable property were given to Jayant Balkrishna Deshmukh, resident of the said village where the immovable property situate. Present applicant is the Notary who had put his rubber stamp and signature on the said document and registered it at Sr.No.495. Apparently on the face of the said notarized power of attorney, there is no any identification of the persons who had given power of attorney to Jayant Balkrishna Deshmukh. Instead of that, the notarization of the said document was done. On the strength of said notarized power of attorney, transaction was entered into by said Jayant Balkrishna Deshmukh with Kevalchand Jain saying that the said property was sold to said Kevalchand Jain for certain consideration. 5. During arguments, learned Senior Counsel Shri Mundargi for the applicant submitted that at the most it would be an act of irregularity and not taking much care 1crn2859-10 4 while notarizing the documents coming before the applicant and in that event Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 is required to be considered as there are certain reservations made, as to under which circumstances, cognizance of the offence can be taken. On this aspect, it must be said that in the present matter not only the irregularities or non- compliance of the provisions of the Notaries Act 1952 but also there is alleged offence under the Indian Penal Code as to one of the conspirators with main accused and this is the offence alleged against the present applicant. 6. During the arguments, learned APP for the State produced the original register and submitted that apart from the present matter there are earlier two similar type of cases of notarizing the documents without there being any proper identification and said registers are in the custody of the same police station. This is fortified by the affidavit preferred by the applicant himself in another matter before the Sessions Judge at Mangaon. Copy of the affidavit is produced before 1crn2859-10 5 this Court, which reveals that definitely there are more than present case of similar nature against the present applicant. 7. All the same, considering the alleged involvement of the present applicant and considering the allegations even in the present complaint, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the present applicant. Also during the arguments, learned APP, on instructions from I.O., submitted that the present applicant was earlier arrested in C.R. Nos.25/2010 and 10/2010 of Roha police station. Considering the said factual position, there is nothing to entertain the application. Hence the order:- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2859 of 2010 for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)