1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [ABA] No. 261 of 2011 (Shivaji S/o. Ramrao Bahekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for the appellants Mr. S.S. Doifode APP for the respondent CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATE : 1 st AUGUST, 2011. Heard. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for directions to release the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 168/2011, registered with Police Station Buldhana, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 472 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One Madhukar Dipke was serving as Sub-Engineer in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. In the year 1984, he was posted at Buldhana. That time, Tirupati Housing Society, Buldhana, was registered. Madhukar Dipke became its member. 3 acres of land was converted into non- agricultural use and said Madhukar was allotted plot no. 28 vide allotment letter dated 16/02/1992. Said Madhukar Dipke was transferred to Akola and in the year 1994 he died. 2 The widow of Madhukar wanted to dispose of property for the marriage of her daughter. Therefore, her son namely Devashis came to Buldhana and found that the applicant was constructing the house on the said plot. The market value of the plot is quoted as about Rs.11,00,000/-. Therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Prabhatai Wd/o. Madhukar Dipke. The applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana. The contention of the applicant, that he is a bona fide purchaser, was refuted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after observing that the alleged offence being of serious nature, custodial interrogation is necessary. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the applicant had no reason to doubt about Baliram Chauhan possessing transferrable title. Said Baliram Chauhan (accused no. 1) was the liquidator of said Tirupati Housing Society and for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- only he executed sale-deed in his favour on 04/06/2009. In that light of the matter, no case much less prima-facie case is made out against him, he urged. Perused the case-diary made available to this Court 3 by the learned APP. The broad circumstances which surfaced during investigation are : (1)In the year 1984, Tirupati Housing Society was registered. (2)In the year 1992, the plot no. 28 was allotted to Madhukar Dipke. (3)On 29/03/2001, the Housing Society was de- registered. (4)Baliram Chauhan (accused no. 1) was liquidator till 29/03/2001. (5)The society was de-registered on 29/03/2001. (6)The applicant Shivaji had never made correspondence with the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in respect of the ownership of the plot no. 28 or in any other respect. (7)One letter, dated 06/04/2010, alleged to have addressed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies was also found fabricated. The applicant is a police officer. Even during preliminary enquiry, one would have learnt as to what power the liquidator has to deal with the immovable property of the housing society. The neighbours or any of the owners would 4 have informed as to who is the real owner. The record of the society would have revealed as to who is the real owner. On enquiry with the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, it could have been learnt as to the position of Baliram Hariram Chauhan and whether he has right to transfer the property of the housing society. The investigation further reveals that two letters were addressed to said Baliram Chauhan stating that Madhukar Dipke had allotted a plot in favour of the present applicant. Of course knowledge of such letters is denied by the applicant. The fact remains that they have been put forward by said Baliram Chauhan. On careful perusal of the case-diary, it appears the case of land grabbing, whose original owner was dead. Considering the nature of accusation and the position held by the applicant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the bail application. Therefore, this Court has to take me same view. The application is rejected. JUDGE *sdw