Vasant Shankarrao Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra

Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... APPLICANT RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3847 OF 2010 Sau. Shobha Vidyasagar Jadhav VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .... Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... APPLICANT RESPONDENT [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th October, 2010] PER COURT :

#2. These are applications for anticipatory bail. Ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants. ( 2 )

#3. Heard learned advocates for the applicants and learned A.P.P.

#4. It appears that the FIR is registered on basis of complaint filed by Ramratan Dhongde. He filed an application seeking investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint application to the Police and as such, the FIR came to be registered for offences punishable under section 166, 167, 465, 466, 467, 471, 420, 197 and 209 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code. The complaint is filed against ten (10) accused persons. It appears that applicant Vasant was working as Tahsildar, Solapur and applicant - Sow. Shobha was working as Tahsildar, Kallam, at the relevant time when the mutation entry was recorded in name of purchasers of the land bearing Survey No. 9. According to the complainant - Ramratan, he had purchased the said land after verification that it was not declared to anyone under provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The complainant purchased the land by virtue of sale deed dated 26-09-2003 from one Rajshree Umashankar Sontakke. It appears that originally, the land was owned by one Rani Krishnabai. The mutation entry came to be recorded on basis of sale deed purportedly executed by ( 3 ) the legal representatives of deceased tenant by name Amrutrao. Whether the tenancy certificate was issued by the competent authority or that it was forged one, is a disputed question.

#5. The complainant did not file any complaint against the applicants at the Police Station in the past. The FIR does not show that he had filed such complaint before the Police but no cognizance was taken and, therefore, he was constrained to file such private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It appears that he directly filed the complaint application which came to be referred for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

#6. Considering the fact that there is a civil dispute about declaration of statutory ownership in favour of tenant by name Amrutrao Dhongde, it is difficult to prima facie infer that the applicants have committed the alleged offences. In any case, their arrest is not eminent and is not so much so required for effective investigation.

#7. Considering the reasons stated above, both the applications are allowed. The applicants are directed to be ( 4 ) released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), each, with one solvent surety bond each, before the Arresting Officer and on condition that they shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. for four consecutive Sundays or till filing of the chargesheet/final report, whichever is earlier, and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4091-3847-10