Ramaswamy Pallaur Sheshan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

S/Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Rishi Bhuta for the Applicant in ABA-553/2012. S/Shri A.H.H. Ponda with C.A. Malgaonkar & Sharad Singh for the Applicant in ABA-554/2012. Shri Moin Khan h/f Ms Anjali Awasti for the Intervener/Complainant in APPP-294, 358, 293 & 357 of 2012. Shri Y.M. Nakhwa, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 30, 2012 P.C:

1. These are two applications for anticipatory bail by partners of M/s. Nimesh Global Syndicate, Builders and Developers, who are doing a slum rehabilitation project under the slum rehabilitation scheme at Oshiwara, Mumbai. The intervener-Satish Vasudev Matere is the person on whose report investigation has started. The slum dwellers formed a Society and that proposed Society held a meeting on 6-3-2005. At this meeting, by Resolution No.5, the applicants' entity was selected for ABA-G-553.2012 redevelopment. It was the grievance of the first informant-intervener that many bogus persons who were not at all slum dwellers of that slum had been included in the list of slum dwellers. Many genuine occupants had not at all consented to such type of redevelopment and yet the Resolution was passed by taking bogus slum dwellers, inflating the number of slum dwellers and then showing as if 70% of the slum dwellers had consented to the redevelopment.

2. Applicant-Rajat Ramesh Patel seems to have joined the partnership on 29-3-2006. Before this date the Slum Rehabilitation Authority had been informed of the Resolution passed and as per the procedure, the Authority had verified the consent of the 70% slum dwellers and the project proceeded.

3. It is the allegation of the first informant that the applicants had forged and ABA-G-553.2012 fabricated documents and submitted such documents like ration cards, electricity bills, etc., for the purpose of showing bogus occupants as real occupants of the slum. On the basis of these bogus documents, which were possibly supposed to have been verified by the authorities concerned, Letter of Intent was issued. The MHADA authorities had also issued certificate to Annexure-II, which certificate is issued after the Authorities verified the claim of the individuals mentioned in the Annexure. In view of these allegations, the I.O. was asked to verify whether 70% of the persons concerned had indeed conveyed their consent for the project and the Officer provided a chart stating that 70% of the persons had indeed consented.

4. The intervener has filed an affidavit stating that 70% of the occupants had not consented since there were 28 bogus consents. ABA-G-553.2012 He filed an affidavit to that effect. Today, the learned counsel for the intervener concedes that 70% of consents are there. He further submits that granting anticipatory bail to the applicants would send a wrong message to the society. He submits that there is a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012-LAWS (SC)-922 which reiterates the principle that a person coming to Court with false claim cannot be shown any indulgence and granted any relief by the Court and should be thrown out. In this case, the question as to who was at the root of providing bogus documents to the Authorities is still not clear from doubt. The Annexure-II is supposed to have been verified by the Authorities of the State. The question as to whether bogus ration cards or electricity bills actually were fabricated in the office of the applicants or they were submitted by the bogus claimants concerned cannot be a matter of ABA-G-553.2012 inference. Therefore, there is no case for subjecting the applicants to custodial interrogation. In any case, applicant-Rajat Patel had come on scene substantially after the documents in question had already been submitted and verified by the Authorities concerned.

5. In view of the above, both the applications are, therefore, allowed. In the event of the applicants' arrest in MECR No.11 of 2011 of Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of `50,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to `50,000/- per person on the condition that the applicants shall report at the police station concerned initially on 3-12-2012 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O..

6. The applicants shall not, directly or ABA-G-553.2012 indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court.

7. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC

8. The anticipatory bail applications accordingly stand disposed of.

9. In view of the above, there is no ABA-G-553.2012 question of initiating action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., unless the investigation is complete and the trial Court comes to such a conclusion. Hence the applications praying for such action also stand disposed of.

10. Since the main applications themselves have been disposed of, nothing survives in the intervention applications and they also accordingly stand disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)