1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.388 OF 2010. GHANSHAMDAS S/O LATE GOPALDAS MOHTA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri H. D. Dangre, Advocate for applicant. Shri Shyam Dewani Advocate assisting for State Respondent. Shri S. S. Doifode, APP for respondent State. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 22nd MARCH, 2010. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The crime No.31 of 2010 has been registered with Police Station Sitabuldi, Nagpur, against the applicant under Section 406, 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The offence has been registered on the basis of the written complaint submitted on or about 27-1-2007 preceded by a written complaint dated 10-4-2009 addressed to Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. 4. This Court had issued notice to respondents and 2 passed ad interim order on 8-3-2010. 5. Today learned APP Shri S. S. Doifode has tendered investigation papers. 6. Perused the investigation papers. Perused the complaint (in Hindi)which is undated, and must be tendered on 27-1-2010, as well the original complaint dated 10-4-2009 (in English), forming part of investigation papers. 7. It is alleged by complainant that:- (a) (a) Gopal Mohota father of accused had 5 shares in Madhya Pradesh Merchant's Chamber of Commerce. (b) The accused has got those shares transferred in his own name. (b) This was done by the accused by depriving the rights of complainant and other legal heirs and thereby committed the offence under Section 406, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In support of the application, learned Advocate for the applicant has urged that:- 3 (a) The shares were transferred way back in 1960 in the name of the applicant, and were thereafter transferred in the name of wife of accused in 1991. (b) Both these transfers were recorded on the sharers and in the company in due course. (c) There is no act of cheating whatsoever. 9. The application has been opposed by learned Advocate Mr. Dewani urging, inter alia, as follows: (i) That though the transfer of shares is claimed to have been effected on 15-4-1960, the original shareholder i.e. Gopaldas had represented that he holds these shares in various proceedings including in this High Court. (ii) The transfer of shares in the name of the accused and latter in the name of his wife was got done by the accused persons by ignoring other shareholders and denying their rights. (iii) The Transfer is got done by the accused by act of forgery and breach of Trust. 4 (iv) Many other benefits were derived by the accused on the basis of the said transfer and therefore, it was an act of cheating other sharers and legal heirs of deceased Gopal Mohota and hence, the offence under Section 406, 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code was committed. 10. Though during oral submissions, the learned Advocate Mr. Shyam Dewani had also urged that the transfer of shares concerned is an act of forgery, the complainant had no occasion to know his details till transfer deeds came on record. 11. The contents of written complaint dated 10-4- 2009 were red out by the learned Advocate Mr. Shyam Dewani in the Court to support the imputations. 12. It is seen that all that is pleaded in the said complaint is that the shares were transferred “without knowledge of the said fact to other family members including the legal heirs of Gopaldas” and by denying their rights” etc. 5 13. This Court has seen the investigation papers. Perused the copy of the complaint dated 10-4-2009, and the statement of the complainant recorded by the police. The grievance as expressed in the statement given to Investigating Officer is that the transfer of shares is done by the accused “in a wrongful manner and in deprivation of other heirs and sharers. 14. Though orally argued by the learned Advocate for the applicant, the act of forgery is neither described nor disclosed from the papers or oral statement. 15. Learned APP Mr. S. S. Doifode has opposed the prayer for bail on the same grounds as done by Learned Advocate Mr. Dewani. 16. This Court had already granted the pre-arrest bail on the conditions incorporated in para 4 of order dated 8-3-2010. No grievance is made before this Court by the Investigating Officer that the conditions of ad interim bail are violated or any non-cooperation is exhibited. 17. In this background, the applicant has made out a 6 case for grant of protection sought for. 18. In this situation, the interim order granted by this Court in para 4 of the order dated 8 th March 2010 is made absolute. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly. Judge //mule//