The present application is filed seeking to release the applicant on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with the complaint being C.R.No.I-269 of 2011 registered with Karelibaug Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.420, 406, 423, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120B of IPC.
It is alleged that the present complainant, an advocate, paid Rs.1.00 crores ( Rupees one crore only) to accused No.1-Rohit Kadam and other accused for purchasing the alleged disputed property known as Jay Bungalows situated at Sayajigunj, Vadodara, belonging to the accused No.1. In this regard, two MOUs were entered into one between Rohit Kadam and Purvesh Shah and the other between Rohit Kadam and the complainant and the present applicant accused signed the MOU. It is further alleged that the property is belonging to the Marvel Mall Developments Pvt. Ltd. and promise was given by the accused that said property will be transferred in the name of complainant by registered sale deed but owner of the said disputed property, Marvel Mall Developments Pvt. Ltd., never entered into the MOU with accused Rohit Kadam nor with any person nor gave permission to sell the property to anybody else. It is also alleged that MOU between accused Rohit Kadam and Marvel Mall Developments Pvt. Ltd. was forged. As far as present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he is the conspirator of the said conspiracy and he was present at Bombay when complainant was asked to come at Bombay for signing the documents by the concerned authorized person of the Company. It is also further alleged that all throughout, the applicant remained present during the transaction that took place and at the first point of time, he asked the complainant to come for purchasing the disputed land.
Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.D.Nanavaty for Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the applicant, learned APP, Mr.L.B.Dabhi for the respondent-State and learned advocate, Mr.Pradeep Patel for the complainant .
It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.D.Nanavaty, for the applicant that the applicant is a land broker and one Shailesh Panchal of Vadodara known to the applicant introduced one Ashok Naidu of Mumbai. It is further submitted that it is Ashok Naidu who arranged the meeting of applicant with one Rohit Kadam. According to him, Rohit Kadam had informed applicant and other persons that he entered into one MOU with Marvel Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd which is the owner of property situated at Vadodara and hence, the applicant talked to complainant about the offer of sale, who, informed that his friend, Dr.Purvesh M.Shah, is interested in purchasing the property and, therefore, MOU was entered into between Rohit Kadam and Dr.Purvesh Shah. Thereafter, the complainant entered into MOU between Rohit Kadam. It is further submitted that thereafter a meeting was arranged by Rohit Kadam with the Managers of Marvel Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Mumbai where the complainant and other person were present. However, Rohit Kadam was demanding more brokerage and hence, the sale deed was not executed and hence, the complainant filed the complaint. Since the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the complaint, he approached the Sessions Court. However, his request for anticipatory bail was turned down. Hence, the present application is preferred.
It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.Pradeep Patel, for the original complainant that from the very beginning, the applicant was present and even at Bombay also, he was present. It is further submitted that it is the applicant, who is the real conspirator and by hatching the conspiracy, these transactions took place and hence, prima facie ingredients of the offence of cheating and forgery are made out against the applicant.
It is to be noted that as far as two MOUs are concerned, there is no forged signature of any of the parties. It is an admitted fact that no amount is received by present applicant nor is he beneficiary of the transactions. It is also pertinent to note that complainant also entered into MOU with Rohit Kadam and he is also witness of the said MOU and hence, it could not be said that present applicant committed forgery by putting bogus signature or by creating forged document. As far as Rohit Kadam is concerned, it is alleged that he created bogus documents alleged to have taken place between the owner of the property and him. As far as first transaction and two MOUs are concerned, the present applicant is not witness nor party to the said documents.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein, the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibia & Ors. reported in (1980)2 SC 565.
Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicant being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I-269 of 2011 registered with Karelibaug Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.420, 406, 423, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120B of IPC the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount on following conditions :
(a) he shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) he shall remain present at Karelibaug Police Station on 16-4-2012 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m;
(c) he shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
(d) he shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
(e) he shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the Trial Court immediately;
(f) It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
(g) Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top