1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.668 OF 2009 Chandrakala Govind Patole .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondent Mr. Shekhar A Ingawale , Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the Respondent. Mr H.A.Mundargi, for respondent nos 2 and 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 17/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents-accused vide order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Sessions Court in Bail Application Nos.474/08 and 484 of 2008. 3. The applicant-Chandrakala Govind Patole is original complainant. She claims to be the owner of C.T.S No. 1050/1A, situated at 5th Lane, Shaupuri (for short, “the said property”). Respondent no.2 claims that he is purchaser of the said property, while respondent no.3, who is a tenant in the said property, had signed the document, executed between respondent no.2 and so-called Chandrakala Govind Patole, as T 2 witness. According to the complainant, a lady impersonated herself as Chandrakala Govind Patole and sold her property to respondent no.2 and hence she filed the complaint against respondent nos 2 and 3 for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 420, 467 and 468 read with 34 of IPC. 3. Mr Ingawale, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently submitted that the lady, who impersonated herself as Chandrakala Govind Patole, is not traceable and unless respondent nos 2 and 3 are taken in custody, it will not be possible for the investigating agency to trace the said lady. It is pertinent to note that the State has not filed any application seeking cancellation of bail. There is no dispute that the parties have already initiated civil proceedings for appropriate reliefs. This court is informed that as of today, the complainant is in possession of the property. All original documents are already seized by the investigating agency. Keeping that in view and having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. Hence, the application is rejected. While rejecting the application, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the claims made by the parties as to ownership of the property. 3 At this stage, the learned A.P.P seeks direction to respondent nos 2 and 3 to attend the concerned police station for some time. Respondent nos 2 and 3 are, accordingly, directed to report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 10 and 11 am for a period of 90 days from today or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)