IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.3358 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3358 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3358 OF 2008 Abu Kasim Azmi, .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr H.H.Ponda i/b Mr M.R.Patil, for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. Mr Milan Desai i/b Abdullah Shaikh-original complainant CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 15/10/2008 DATE : 15/10/2008 DATE : 15/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Ponda, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Desai, learned counsel for the original complainant and Mr Saste, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.(FIR) No.103 of 2008 of MIDC Police Station, Andheri (E), Mumbai. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and two others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 384, 386, 387 read with 120-B, 342, 465, 466 and 467 of IPC. The main allegation against the accused persons in this case is that all the three accused conspired and in pursuance thereof they made the complainant to sign two documents, the first being a settlement dt. 2.6.00 at Lonawala and the second being another settlement dated 22.7.2005 at Colaba, Mumbai in respect of an immovable property of the complainant which they, by virtue of these two documents, attempted to get it transferred in their names. It is alleged that all the three applicants confined the complainant and witnesses in a room and forced them to sign the aforesaid documents and when the complainant refused to sign, he was threatened and he was forced to put his signatures on these documents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties for quite some time. Mr Ponda, invited my attention to the aforementioned documents and also to several other documents and more particularly the written complaint dated 18.11.2006 and the letters of M.K.Nesri dated 28.12.2005 and 17.11.2006 addressed to the advocate for the accused. It appears that the settlement dated 2.6.2000 was signed by Jamaluddin Ahmed Shaikh and Riyaz Ahmed Shaikh, (accused nos 1 and 2) and the complainant and out of the land admeasuring 3189.50 sq.yards, the land admeasuring 1500 sq.yards was separated as the share of Gala owners and the remaining land admeasuring 1689.50 sq.yards was agreed to be divided into three equal parts to be allotted to the complainant accused no. 1 and accused no.2. Thereafter, the settlement dated 22.7.2005 was signed by the complainant and accused nos 1 and 2 in the presence of the present applicant at Colaba when the complainant was allegedly threatened by all the three accused and made him to agree for the said settlement. The xerox copies of the settlements dated 2.6.2000 and 22.7.2005 are placed on record. The next document to which my attention was invited is dated 20.12.2005, the letter written by Advocate Nesari to Advocate Dubey. It is pertinent to note that in this letter there is absolutely no reference made to the alleged threat of life given either in 2000 or 2005 by the accused persons including the present applicant. Infact, from the contents of the letter dated 20.12.2005, it prima facie appears that the settlement was voluntary and the complainant had signed the same and he did not make any grievance about the alleged use of force and threats till 17.11.2006. Mr Nesari, learned advocate, sent another letter on 17.11.2006 and for the first time he made reference to some threats being given by Aslam Jamaluddin Shaikh and the present applicant when they had allegedly visited the house of the complainant and since the complainant was not present they had left their mobile number asking him to contact the present applicant. Immediately on 18.11.2006 a written complaint was made by the complainant in which he once again made reference to the threat given by all the three accused for obtaining signature of the complainant on the documents dated 22.7.2005. Thus, it is clear that the allegation of giving threats was made for the first time on 17.11.2006 about the two incidents occurred on 2.6.2000 and 22.7.2005. The letter of Mr Nesari dated 20.12.2005 though make reference to both these incidents, does not make even indirect reference to such threat. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the complainant kept quite from June, 2000 till November, 2006 and why did he not approach police? or why did he not file private criminal complaint or file civil proceedings seeking appropriate reliefs? The contention advanced on behalf of the complainant that accused nos 1 and 2 do not have any right in the land and obtained the complainant’s signature under threats, therefore, looses its significance. Keeping this in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that the other two accused were arrested and released on bail, I am inclined to allow this application filed by the present applicant seeking anticipatory bail. As a matter of fact the present applicant is neither a beneficiary nor has any concern with the alleged transaction between the complainant and accused nos 1 and 2. In the circumstances, I pass the following order. 4. In the event of arrest, the applicant to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.35,000/-, with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, on the conditions that the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of MIDC Police Station, Andheri (E), Mumbai, for a period of two years. If the trial does not conclude within two years, the applicant shall have a liberty to apply for modification of this condition. The applicant shall report to the concerned police station every alternate day till 31.10.2008 between 6 and 7 pm and thereafter on every Wednesday and Saturday for a period of 90 days from the date of his formal arrest or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. The applicant is allowed to enter the jurisdiction of MIDC area only for the purpose of attending the police station on the day and time mentioned above. 5. It is needless to mention that the applicant shall restrain himself from even indirectly tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses. The applicant is expected to cooperate with the investigation. It is always open to the investigating agency to approach the appropriate court seeking cancellation of bail in the event the applicant fails to observe these conditions or commits breach thereof. 6. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)