Bombay High Court
Ramesh Dungarshi Shah And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 November, 2022
Author: N.R. Borkar
Bench: N.R. Borkar
8-ABA-3010-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3010 OF 2022
Ramesh Dungarshi Shah and another ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
.........
Mr. Onkar Gupte for the Applicants.
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the State.
API Anurath Gije, Uran Police Station, present.
.........
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATED : 15 NOVEMBER 2022
P.C. :-
. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail.
2. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.
335 of 2020 registered at Uran Police Station, for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the maternal grandfather
of the complainant was the owner of land bearing Survey Nos.224 and 212
at Mouze Chanje. His maternal grandfather and grandmother died in the
year 1967 and 1998 respectively and after their death name of his mother
and her three sisters were mutated in revenue record. According to the
Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 4
8-ABA-3010-2022.odt
complainant in the year 1970 the CIDCO had acquired some portion of
the land owned by his grandfather and in lieu of said acquisition granted
plot No.80 in Sector 59 admeasuring 399.61 sq.mtrs. at Uran. According
to the complainant in the year 2015 he obtained the 7/12 extract and
found that names of his mother and her sister Yamunabai were deleted
from 7/12 extract. It is alleged that he thereafter obtained certain
documents under the Right to Information Act from CIDCO and he
found that one order dated 3rd July 2008 passed by the Civil Court in Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.140 of 2006 was submitted to the CIDCO
and on the basis and said documents the accused got executed agreement
in their favour from CIDCO of the said plot No.80 at Uran. It is alleged
that he therefore made an application for certified copy of the order of the
Civil Court, which was submitted to the CIDCO by the accused and he
found that said order was forged. It is alleged that the accused by
submitting forged documents got executed agreement from CIDCO and
sold the plot in question to Tirupati Land Infrastructure. During the
course of investigation, the accused were arrested and they disclosed that
the said forged order of Civil Court was given to them by the present
applicant No.1 who is a builder and applicant No.2 who is an employee of
applicant No.1.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the
learned APP for the State.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the
names of mother of complainant and her sister Yamunabai were deleted
Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 4
8-ABA-3010-2022.odt
from the 7/12 extracts of land in question in the year 1986 itself. It is
submitted that in the award passed by the CIDCO their names were not
there. It is submitted that co-accused in the present crime executed the
agreement dated 21st February 2016 in favour of the applicant No.1 in
respect of plot in question and as they breached the said agreement, the
applicant No.1 was required to file suit for specific performance. It is
submitted that the entire allegations in the FIR are against the co-accused
and the present applicants have nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is
submitted that nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the present
applicants and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation. It is
submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, the applicants be
released on anticipatory bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the
applicant No.1 in February 2006, even before execution of the formal
Agreement by CIDCO in favour of accused in respect of plot in question,
got executed the irrevocable power of attorney from the accused. It is
submitted that the said power of attorney would show that the applicants
got authorization from the accused to represent them and submit necessary
documents to the CIDCO and other authorities. The learned APP further
submits that the applicant No.1 has already withdrawn the suit filed by
him. It is submitted that even though no right, title or interest was
formally transferred in favour of applicant No.1 he is party to agreement in
favour of M/s. Tirupati Land Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and received Rs.48
Lakhs. It is submitted that during the course of investigation it was found
that the forged order of the court was given to the accused by the present
Kanchan P Dhuri 3 / 4
8-ABA-3010-2022.odt
applicants. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence, the
applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.
7. Admittedly, the forged order of the civil court was submitted
to the CIDCO. It appears that even before the execution of formal
agreement of plot in question by the CIDCO in favour of accused, the
present applicant No.1 got executed the irrevocable power of attorney from
them. At this stage, the statements of the co-accused that the forged order
of Civil Court was given to them by the present applicants cannot be
ignored. It appears that applicant No.1 has received Rs.48,00,000/- from
Tirupati Land Infrastructure, though no right, title or interest in the plot in
question was formally transferred in his favour. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
present applicants. In the result, the following order is passed :
ORDER
Application is rejected.
( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI PRASHANT Date:
DHURI 2022.11.17 16:51:31 +0530 Kanchan P Dhuri 4 / 4