Bombay High Court
Samrat Ramchandra Patil And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 June, 2019
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
1 910-ABA No.1225-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1225 OF 2019
Samrat Ramchandra Patil & Anr. ] ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.881 OF 2019
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1225 OF 2019
M/s. Home Builders ] ...Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF
Samrat Ramchandra Patil & Anr. ] ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.893 OF 2019
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1225 OF 2019
M/s. Krishna Estates ] ...Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Samrat Ramchandra Patil & Anr. ] ... Applicants
Purti Parab
1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 06:15:06 :::
2 910-ABA No.1225-19.doc
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent
Mr. Bhujang More, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for the State/Respondent.
Mr. Samrat Thakkar i/b Mr. Jaideep Thakkar, Advocate for the
Intervener in Cri. Appln. No.881/2019 and Cri. Appln. No.893/2019.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :- 26 JUNE, 2019.
P. C. :-
1. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with
C.R. No.92/2019 registered with CBD Belapur Police Station, Navi
Mumbai u/sec. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. The FIR is lodged by one Sunil Sharkar who was working as a
Clerk with CIDCO. It is mentioned in the FIR that he was entrusted
with the work of preparing files in respect of the acquisition of plots
and in respect of distribution of the developed plots to the original
land owners under the 12.50% scheme. The present FIR pertains to
the File No.183 in respect of Plot Nos.2 and 2 A at Village Karave.
The allegations were in respect of the dispute regarding ownership
and about being beneficiaries under the 12.50% scheme. It is
Purti Parab
2 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 06:15:06 :::
3 910-ABA No.1225-19.doc
mentioned in the FIR that the Applicant No.2 had initially given
Release Deed in respect of her rights in favour of her mother. The
deed was notarized on 10/03/2008. The said Release Deed was
submitted in the office of CIDCO on 07/05/2008. After that CIDCO
had entered into Agreement for Lease with one Hirabai Halsikar and
others. On the same day, tripartite agreement was executed. Because
of the Release Deed, the name of the Applicant No.2 was not included
in the list in respect of that plot. It is mentioned in the FIR that the
Applicant No.2 gave another letter mentioning by further documents
executed on 30/07/2009, she had revoked the Release Deed and was
claiming rights on the said plot. Since that revocation deed was
subsequently tendered and since the transaction was already
completed, the subsequent letter of Applicant No.2 was not acted
upon. Thereafter, on 30/11/2018, Applicant No.2 tendered a letter
and a photocopy of an order purportedly issued by the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of
Maharashtra. The officers of CIDCO got suspicious and entered into
correspondence with the Government of Maharashtra authorities. It
was revealed that the said order and the letter head was forged. It
bore the signature of the Hon'ble Chief Minister with the official seal.
Purti Parab
3 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 06:15:06 :::
4 910-ABA No.1225-19.doc
The entire document was a forged document. After such offence was
revealed, the FIR was lodged by the first informant on 10/05/2019.
3. The Applicant No.1 is the son of the Applicant No.2.
4. Heard Mr. Bhujang More, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and
Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for the State/Respondent.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants
themselves were the victims of the fraud committed by one Rajesh
Shirke and one Jasmine Tandel. He invited my attention to a letter
dated 23/01/2019 addressed by the Applicant No.1 to the Manager,
CIDCO. It was mentioned in that letter that the applicants came in
contact with one Jasmine Tandel and Rajesh Shirke who claimed to be
in contact with important officers in the Mantralaya. It is further
mentioned in the letter that since the applicants could not get justice
from the CIDCO officers, they decided to get their work done through
these two persons and for that they were willing to spend amount to
the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs. The tenor of the letter shows that the
applicants tried to get their work done illegally through these two
persons.
Purti Parab
4 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 06:15:06 :::
5 910-ABA No.1225-19.doc
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicants also pointed out that the
applicants had approached to Marine Drive Police Station with the
grievance that they were cheated by these two persons namely Rajesh
Shirke and Jasmine Tandel. He therefore submitted that the
applicants themselves were the victims and they could not be
arraigned as accused in the present crime. He also pointed out that
the aforesaid accused Jasmine Tandel was arrested and was released
on bail and nothing fruitful came out of his interrogation. He
therefore, submitted that the custodial interrogation of the present
applicants is not necessary. He submitted that the forgery was
committed by Rajesh Shirke and Jasmine Tandel and the present
applicants cannot be said to have committed any offence of forgery. In
support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj And Another
reported in (2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases 581. He submitted that
there is nothing to show that the present applicants had actually
committed any forgery. Therefore, they cannot held responsible for
commission of crime u/sec.465, 467 and 468 of I.P.C.
7. As against this submissions, Ld. APP submitted that the offence
Purti Parab
5 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 06:15:06 :::
6 910-ABA No.1225-19.doc
is serious. The seal of the Chief Minister is forged. The orders are
forged and the applicants are trying to take advantage of that letter
for their own purpose. The conspiracy is widely spread and therefore,
custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary.
8. Having considering the submissions, it is clear that the
applicants themselves had not acted in bonafide manner. The
applicants had approached Rajesh Shirke and Jasmine Tandel. The
letter annexed to this application itself shows that the applicants were
looking to resolve their issue through illegal means to procure order
from the Mantralaya, that itself is a serious offence. The copy of the
letter was admitted by the applicants. Therefore, at this stage, neither
of the applicants can escape from the allegations of commission of the
present offence. The submission that the actual forgery was not
committed by any of the applicants cannot be accepted at this stage as
the offence is committed by all the accused in collusion with each
other. Considering the serious allegations and considering the fact
that the exact manner in which the documents was forged is still not
clear before the investigating agency and since the applicants
themselves are the beneficiaries in the entire crime, it is obvious that
Purti Parab
6 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 06:15:06 :::
7 910-ABA No.1225-19.doc
the custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary. In this view of the
matter, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the following
order.
ORDER
1. Application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.
2. Intervention Applications also stands disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Purti Parab 7 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 06:15:06 :::