1
MHNS010035202022
Order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 864/2022.
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438
of Cr.P.C. in C.R.No. I­184/2022 registered against applicant Anil
Dashrath Patil at Mumbai Naka Police Station for the offence punishable
under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.

2.

In short, the applicant submit that she is innocent and
falsely implicated in the present crime. Applicant has no intention to
cheat anybody. Applicant has merely acted as witness to the sale
deed which is executed in favour of co­accused. Hence, it cannot be
said that he is involved in the present offence. He has no concern
with the property. He was never intending to purchase the property.
He had no benefit from the said transaction directly or indirectly due
to which sections levelled against him are not attracted. The women
who has purchase the property is his wife so he has identified her.
He has no involvement in the present offence nor he was identifying
anybody else.

He is the bread owner of his family and has
responsibility of member of his family. He is ready to abide by all
the terms and conditions. Hence, prayed that application is allowed.
3.

Say was called of Investigating Officer he has objected
this application on the count that present applicant is the husband of
accused Radhika Patil. He has signed as witness to the agreement.
Even after having knowledge of the transaction he has participated.

2
As the property is purchase in the name of his wife present applicant
is directly beneficiary and with connivance with each other they have
committed the offence.

Original documents is to be seized.

Impersonated person is yet to be arrested with the help of the
applicant. There is possibility of entering into transaction with
others. They have to inquire as to how the forged Adhar Card and
Pan Card has been prepared. There is involvement of more person
for which police custody is essential. Hence, prayed that application
be rejected.
4.

Heard Learned Advocate for the accused and Learned
APP for the State. It is contended by the Advocate for the applicant
that after inquiry wife of the applicant has entered into transaction.
Thrice notice was issued before purchasing the property. Wife of the
applicant has entered into the transaction after checking the bonafide
of the co­accused. He has merely signed as witness to the said
document, hence, no role can be attributed to him for the offences.
Hence, prayed that bail be granted.
5.

On the other hand it is argued by the Ld. APP that on
perusing the publication issued there is no signature of the Advocate
or the co­accused. Presence of the applicant is required to search
the impersonated person. Original documents are required to verify
the signature. Inquiry has to be made from where forged documents
have been prepared, hence, prayed that presence of the applicant is
necessary for investigation.
6.

Perused the case papers and the say of the investigating
officer. At the outset it is seen that wife of the applicant has got the
sale deed executed from a person who is not the real owner of the
property. Complainant has contended that Pan Card, Adhar Card and
3
photographs filed alongwith the sale deed is not his.
7.

Considering the facts and circumstance serious offences
are leveled against the applicant. Investigation officer has clearly
stated that the custody of the applicant is required so as to search the
impersonated person as well as they have to inquire from where and
from whom forged Adhar Card and Pan Card was prepared of the
impersonated person. Recovery of the original sale deed is yet to be
made. It is seen that the wife has entered into transaction without
making payment of the consideration amount to which the present
applicant has acted as a witness, hence, it clearly reflects that in
connivance with each other the document was prepared. All these
factors reflect the involvement of the applicant.
8.

All the above grounds are justified for grant of custody.

Thus, considering the nature of allegations, prima­facie case is not
made out by applicant for grant of pre­arrest bail. Hence, I pass the
following order :­
ORDER
1]
The application is hereby rejected.

2]
Inform concerned Police Station accordingly.

Nashik.
Date : 14/07/2022.

Sd/­xxx
(V.S.Malkalpatte­Reddy)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.