Prashant Kantilal Gujar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Prashant Kantilal Gujar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 2020

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

 Sajakali Jamadar                1 of 2                       913-ABA-554-2020.doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 554 OF 2020

 1. Prashant Kantilal Gujar
 2. Priyanka Prashant Gujar                            ...Applicants
          Versus
 The State of Maharashtra                              ...Respondent
                                   .....
 Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr. Harshad A. Sathe, Advocate for the
 Applicants.
 Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                   .....
                               CORAM :    PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                               DATE :     5th MARCH, 2020
 PC :

 1.       The applicants are apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 2 of 2020

 registered with Mahad City Police Station Dist. Raigad for offences

 punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 r/w Section

 34 of Indian Penal Code.


 2.       The FIR was registered on the basis of private complaint filed

 by the complainant in pursuant to directions issued under Section

 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The FIR was lodged on 3rd January, 2020.


 3.       The grievance of the complainant is that new map was

 prepared which covers area owned by the complainant in connivance

 with the officials of Land Survey Officer, Mahad. The contentions of

 the applicant is that there is no element of forgery. Suit was filed by

 Pramod Sondkar who is shown as the victim and witness in the

 complaint. The injunction application was rejected. Learned counsel


::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2020                  ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 22:29:28 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar                     2 of 2                        913-ABA-554-2020.doc




 drew my attention to the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior

 Division, Mahad on 21st October, 2016. Apparently, the police had

 not taken cognizance of complaint and thereafter complainant filed

 private complaint.


 4.       Learned APP submits that the investigating Officer is not

 present. Considering the factual aspects of this case, interim

 protection can be granted to the applicant.


 5.       Hence, I pass following order :


                                           ORDER

i) In the event of arrest of applicants in C.R. No. 2 of 2020 registered with Mahad City Police Station Dist. Raigad, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25000/-, each with one or more sureties in the like amount;

ii) The applicants shall attend Investigating Officer on 12th 13th & 16th March, 2020 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

iii) This interim protection granted till next date of hearing.

iv) Stand over to 31st March, 2020. To be listed on 'Supplementary Board'.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 22:29:28 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court