Bombay High Court
Satish Motiram Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 December, 2020
Author: Sandeep K. Shinde
Bench: Sandeep K. Shinde
14-ABAST-4916-
2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANT. BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.4916 OF 2020
Satish Motiram Chavan ... Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
...
Mr. Brijesh Shukla for the Applicant. Mrs. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 7th DECEMBER, 2020.
P.C. :
Heard.
2 Applicant is facing the accusation of forging valuable security within the meaning of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; an ofence punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years and fne. Here, allegedly forged document is Shivgan 1/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 ::: 14-ABAST-4916- 2020.odt agreement for sale dated 24th September, 2020 and 12th April, 2018 whereby applicant and the co-accused Balestar Prasad Tiwari @ Chikna Tiwari usurped/ transferred rights of the complainant and his father in a plot of land bearing CTS No.2616, Malvani Taluka, Borivali, Mumbai admeasuring 14 X 35 sq.ft. ('Plot' for short). Ramashankar Ramraksha Tiwari is owner of this plot. In September, 2020, he had noticed unknown persons had encroached over the plot and were preparing to make construction thereon. He, therefore, submitted written complaint on 24th September, 2020 to Malvani Police Station. After preliminary enquiry, Ramashankar Tiwari's son Vinodkumar Tiwari lodged the complaint against Chikna Tiwari, co-accused. On complaint, Crime No.1444 of 2020 was registered against the applicant and the co-accused on 26 th October, 2020 for the ofences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the Shivgan 2/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 ::: 14-ABAST-4916- 2020.odt Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3 Apprehending the arrest, applicant and the co-accused Chikna Tiwari sought Anticipatory Bail. Applicant's application was rejected; whereas Tiwari's application also came to be rejected on 4 th December, 2020.
4 Be that as it may, this application was heard extensively on 4th December, 2020.
5 Investigating Ofcer is present. He has produced material collected in the course of the investigation for perusal of this Court. It is applicant's case that co-accused Chikna Tiwari had purchased subject plot from Ramashankar Tiwari under unregistered agreement for sale dated 4 th April, 2018 for the total consideration of Rs.12 Lakhs. Under the agreement Tiwari claims consideration was paid to Shivgan 3/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 ::: 14-ABAST-4916- 2020.odt Ramashankar Tiwari by cash. Ramashankar Tiwari denied this transaction. In fact, he had fled written complaint on 24th September, 2020. It may also be stated that the applicant did not produce original agreement though he was directed by this Court when he was heard on 28th November, 2020. It is now contended that original agreement of 14th April, -2018 is lost and not available either with Tiwari or with the applicant. I have perused the xerox copy of the agreement, executed on non-judicial stamp-paper of Rs.100/-. Conspicuously non-judicial stamp does not bear details of Central Stamp Ofce/Issuing Authority. 6 Be that as it may, it is applicant's case that Tiwari, co-accused sold this plot to him on 24 th September, 2020 under the unregistered document for total consideration of Rs.13 Lakhs. Applicant claims that he paid Rs.12 Lakhs in cash and one lakh by Shivgan 4/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 ::: 14-ABAST-4916- 2020.odt cheque. When queried source of his income, he stated that he had borrowed the money from his friend Mr. Yogesh V. Rathod. Statement of Rathod has been recorded. Mr. Rathod denied that he had given 10 Lakhs' loan to the applicant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits, Rathod is working as loading supervisor with one airlines. It may also be stated that when the applicant was asked about his source of income, learned counsel for the applicant would reply that applicant is business-man and owns 3-4 shops. This fact was verifed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and thus, submitted that applicant is working as a clerk with one co-operative credit society. It may also be stated that cheque of Rs.1 Lakh purportedly issued by the applicant to the co-accused Tiwari has not been deposited by Tiwari till date. 7 Investigation shows that the applicant and the co-accused on 10th December, 2020, when started Shivgan 5/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 ::: 14-ABAST-4916- 2020.odt making construction on the plot, Corporation-Local Planning Authority issued notice to the applicant. Notice was replied by this applicant wherein one electricity bill was produced in support of his case that he was occupying the subject plot. Verifcation revealed that electricity bill of one Kunti Devi was fled before designated ofcer of the Corporation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice, statement of Kunti Devi, who disowned that she had given her electricity bill to the applicant. Fact remains that electricity bill is not in respect of construction made on plot allegedly purchased by the applicant through the co-accused Chikna Tiwari. It is interesting to note that soon after the the complaint was fled by Ramashankar (owner), the civil suit has been fled seeking appropriate relief against the Corporation, which is pending for adjudication.
Shivgan 6/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 :::
14-ABAST-4916- 2020.odt 8 Thus, taking into consideration facts of the case borne out from the material placed before this Court by the prosecution, complicity of the applicant is clearly visible in forging the 'valuable security' to usurp the rights in the said plot. Even otherwise applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands but tried to mislead the Court by making wrong statements. Prima-facie, documents on the basis of which rights are sought to be claimed in a plot belonging to complainant's father is a forged document. Besides, agreement dated 4th April, 2018 of which original is not produced is prima-facie, a got up document as it does not bear a stamp of Central Ofce wherefrom non-judicial stamp paper was purchased by the applicant and/or the co-accused Chikna Tiwari. 9 In consideration of the facts of the case, application is rejected.
Shivgan 7/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 :::
14-ABAST-4916- 2020.odt 10 It is made clear that observations made here- in-above be construed as expression of opinion for the purpose of bail only and the same shall not in any way influence the trial in other proceedings.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) Shivgan 8/8 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2020 22:19:29 :::