1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.704 OF 2011 Smt. Urmila R. Dhall ...Applicant. v/s The State ...Respondent. Mr.N.B.Shah i/by Ms Sonia Miskin,advs. For the Applicant. Mr.Y.S.SHinde ,APP For the Respondent/State. Shri Chaitnya Pendse, adv. For the Intervener present in Court. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA,J. DATED : AUGUST 23,2011. P.C. 1 Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in crime no.135 of 2011 registered with Samata Nagar police station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. 2 Heard. Perused the F.I.R. and the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting application for anticipatory bail filed by the present applicant. As per the F.I.R., the complainant Rampratap Vishwakarma and his wife purchased flat nos.1101 and 1102 at Kimson Towers, Akurli Satya Society Ltd., Lokhandwala Township, Akurli Road, Kandivali (E) from one Champaklal Shah and Alpesh 2 Shah, who were the owners of the said flats and members of the concerned society. Original agreement was of 2001 and in 2004, after making all the payments, the complainant and his wife were put in possession of the same by Champaklal Shah. According to the complainant, on 8th May, 2004, he went out of the Mumbai city for some work. In absence of the present applicant, Urmila and her husband Sajesh Dhall prepared a bogus membership certificate of the society in the name of one Smt. Shashi Sikka in respect of these two flats, made false representation and sold away said flats in favour of one Hanuman Tiwari and his wife by preparing bogus documents. On the basis of those documents, they made false representation to the society and said Hanuman Tiwari and his wife were put in possession of the flats. When the complainant approached the society, documents were verified and it was found that the present applicant had forged the documents. As the building was originally constructed by the MHADA, the complainant was pursuing the matter with the MHADA authorities. It appears that original 3 owner Champaklal Shah had also filed civil suit for injunction but he could not get any temporary injunction because Hanuman Tiwari and his wife were already in possession. Later on, Champaklal Shah has withdrawn the suit. After that on 22.4.2011, the complainant lodged the report, on the basis of which this offence came to be registered. 3 Applicant claims anticipatory bail mainly on the ground that the alleged offence was committed in the year 2004 and the report was lodged in 2011. Secondly, applicant is woman aged about 70 years. It appears that detailed report was called by the learned Sessions Court while dealing with the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant. The report revealed that besides the present case, there are in all 8 criminal cases against the applicant. Out of them, crime no. 119/2004 and 122/2004 are similar to the present case. Applicant appears to have indulged in similar type of offences by forging documents including share certificates in respect of properties of other persons by using bogus and fake seal of the MHADA 4 authorities and thus, she had allegedly duped certain people. In the present case also, the applicant had allegedly prepared forged documents on the basis of which she managed to transfer the two flats of the complainant and his wife in favour of Hanuman Tiwari and his wife. Taking into consideration modus operandi and the nature of offence, in spite of her age and in spite of her being a woman, I find that it is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 4 The learned counsel for the applicant contended that other two accused Hanuman Tiwari and his wife have been granted anticipatory bail and when the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail, this applicant should also be granted anticipatory bail. For this he placed reliance on Sumeet Saluja v/s State of U.P.TR.CBI 2011 (3) Supreme 302. In that case, after arrest, one of the accused was granted bail. The Supreme Court held that similarly situated co-accused also deserved to be granted bail. In the present case, firstly, the applicant had never surrendered nor she was 5 arrested. Secondly, taking into consideration the facts, the applicant can not be compared with the other two co-accused Hanuman Tiwari and his wife because they may be bonafide purchasers for the consideration without knowing that property was being sold on the basis of forged document. Therefore, this authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5 Therefore, this application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)