1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 225 /2010 [ Vinod Haribhau Kalamkar vs. State of Mahrashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Ashwin Wasnik, Adv. for applicant Mr C N Adgokar , APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2010. Heard. 2 The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 7/2010 reported under sections 419, 420 , 467 , 468 471 read with section 34 IPC at Ramtek Police Station prayed for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that he is innocent and not concerned with alleged execution of forged document between one Naresh Ramdas Bakshi and a lady, by name, Manoramabai Digambarrao Pokil before the Sub- Registrar Ramtek. It appears in the court of Sessions the Public Prosecutor was informed regarding prima facie case against the present applicant. It is alleged that present applicant and Jitendra Badekuriya seller as well as purchaser but since the date of incident, they are absconding; original documents are to be recovered. The unknown woman who was allegedly presented before the Sub-Registrar Office who impersonated herself as Manoharma Pokli so as to execute the alleged sale deed 2 between said Manoramabai as executant of the document while Naresh Ramdas Bakshi is shown as the person in whose favour the document was to be executed. But according to Investigating agency, the document is forged and fabricated and the same has been falsely executed. It appears that the investigation is at preliminary stage. Earlier the present applicant had moved before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -11 Nagpur, who rejected the application for anticipatory bail on 27.1.2010 on the ground that there appears prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime under investigation as it is alleged that he had helped the absconding accused persons to get the document registered in the Registrar's office. It is also revealed that the applicant had withdrawn the necessary 7/12 extract of the property on his own. Further it is alleged that the sale deed was executed by the presenting the bogus executors. Under these circumstances, it would be necessary for the Investigating agency to probe deeper and to interrogate if necessary by custodial interrogation. Considering the serious accusations, although according to applicant, his servant was released by JMFC Ramtek after custodial interrogation was allowed, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant will have also to undergo custodial necessary. That being so, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Interim order stands vacated. JUDGE 3 sahare