1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3995 OF 2010 Pradip S/o Lalchand Lunkad ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondents. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 18 th November, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks directions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicant is an estate broker and developer. He allegedly represented to the informant Rajendra Mantri that he owns land Gut No. 858 comprising of 2 H 62 R in which 43 plots were made available for alienation. The informant-Rajendra entered into an agreement of sale with the applicant. It was agreed that before March, 2002, the applicant shall obtain the N.A. permission for completion of the transaction. The applicant applied for N.A. permission. He submitted map of land Gut No. 858, inclusive of land Gut No. 859 which is a separate and distinct 2 agricultural land. 3. The transaction scissored out and thereafter informant Rajendra Mantri lodged F.I.R. with police alleging that the applicant had interpolated and fabricated the map so as to include gut no. 859 while obtaining N.A. permission though he has no concern with the said land. Informant further asserted that the applicant attempted to commit fraud on the competent authority by fabricating the map of Gut No. 858 as if to say that there is no separate land gut no. 859 and included the area thereof though he has no concern, whatsoever, with the same. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant is being involved in the criminal case with ill- intention to pressurize him for completing transaction. The learned Advocate would further submit that in the case of civil dispute, the question of fabrication of the documents is alleged with a view to somehow get the applicant arrested and put under pressure. The learned Advocate refers to the case of " Ravindra Saxena V/s State of Rajasthan" (2010 AIR SCW 530). It is contended that the applicant is also entitled to seek anticipatory bail likewise the liberty granted to said Ravindra Saxena by the Apex Court. 3 5. The application, however, is opposed by the learned A.P.P. 6. In the present case, the fact situation brought on surface of the record reveals that the N.A. permission was granted at the request of the applicant, relying upon the information furnished by him and the map submitted by him in respect of Gut No. 858 but that has been subsequently cancelled for the reason that the original map was interpolated and fabricated by the applicant. The learned Assistant Director, Town Planning, Jalgaon by order dated 2nd June, 2009 has given a specific finding that the map submitted by the applicant is fabricated and forged. So far as the avernments in the F.I.R. are concerned, it is not necessary to scrutinize the evidence at this juncture. Considering the findings of the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Director, Town Planning, Jalgaon, it, prima facie, appears that the applicant, in-fact, submitted forged and fabricated map to the competent Authority in order to secure N.A. permission of land Gut No.858 by including another land Gut No. 859. It, prima facie, appears that the applicant is not owner of the land Gut No. 859. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the applicant is not a layman or novice in business of transactions pertaining to the agricultural lands or developed properties. He himself is a developer and estate broker. 4 So far it, prima facie, appears that he forged the map with a view to cheat the informant and the Competent Authority and to obtain unlawful gains for himself. The reference to the case of Ravindra Saxena is of no much avail in the context of the present fact situation. Moreover, in the discretionary matters like bail, law of precedent will not be applicable unless certain principle, as such, is settled and referred to. Under the circumstances, no prima facie case appears to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed. 7. At the request of Smt. S.S. Jadhav, the learned Advocate for applicant, the interim protection granted to the applicant is extended till two weeks. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri3995.10