- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 301 OF 2008 1. Arun Ramkrishna Patil ) 2. Sharmila Arun Patil ) Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Mr. A. P. Mundargi i/b Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent State. Mr. Subhash Jha i/b Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2008. PC 1. Heard. 2. The complainant and his family claims to be the owners of the property in question. In October 2007 complainant filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate bearing Criminal Case No. 1032 of 2007, alleging that the applicants had committed an offence punishable under S. 120(B), 420, 464, 468, 471 read with - 2 - section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the applicant no.1 prepared a false and fabricated irrevocable power of attorney dated 9th February 1999 purportedly authorizing him to develop and/or transfer the property in question. The said power of attorney does not bear signature of the complainant or any of his family members. By falsely using the said fabricated power of attorney the applicant No.1 transferred the property in question to the applicant No.2, and thereby committed an offence mentioned above. After perusal of the complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and thereupon F.I.R. has been registered by the Shanti Nagar Police Station, Bhiwandi, District Thane. The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the said F.I.R. 3. The alleged irrevocable power of attorney executed by the complainant and his family members in favour of the applicant was seized by the police. Photo copy of the power of attorney is also annexed to this application. The photo copy discloses that the power of attorney has been attested and notarized by Mr. S. R. More, a Notary, on 9th February 1999. Though there is some over writing of the date the same has subsequently written again in hand and therefore, that over writing is not of - 3 - much importance. Since the power of attorney purported to be notarized, the statement of Notary public was recorded by the police . I also summoned the Notary and directed him to produce the notarial register. Notary has produced the register. Perusal of the notarial register shows no entry of notarisation of the alleged power of attorney. Notary in his statement before the police has stated that there was neither execution of the development agreement nor power of attorney before him, nor were they notarized by him. He has further stated that notarial rubber seal put on the power of attorney is not his seal and the same is forged. He has further stated that the signatures on the said documents are not his signatures and they are forged. prima-facie the alleged irrevocable power of attorney on the basis of which the applicant no.1 purported to transfer the property in question was not executed by the executants and nor was the same notarized. In the circumstances, in my view there is prima-facie evidence connecting the applicant No.1 to the crime. The applicant No.1 cannot be granted bail pending the investigation as his custodial interrogation appears to be is necessary. 5. As regards the applicant No.2, she is a woman, which is a relevant circumstances for considering he - 4 - request for bail. The complainant does not ascribe any specific role to her. The complaint only states that applicant No.1 prepared false document, including the power of attorney and by use of which, he transferred the property of the applicant No.2. In the circumstances, in my view applicant No.2 can be granted pre-arrest bail. Hence, I pass the following order. _O_R_D_E_R_ (i) Application for grant of pre-arrest bail of applicant No.1 is hereby rejected. (ii) In the event of arrest, applicant No.2 for the aforementioned crime, she be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, (iii) The applicant No.2 shall cooperate with the investigation agency and shall attend the concerned police station once a week between 10 a.m. to 12 noon on every Monday for a period of 8 weeks for herself for interrogation. The applicant No. 2 shall not make any inducements or threats to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution - 5 - evidence. (iv) The applicant No.1 is granted time till 18th of March 2008 to surrender. Sd/- [ D. G. KARNIK, J.]