Cri. Bail Application No.1671/2020

Imran Aayyub Tamboli … Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra (Sarkarada Police Stn.) … Respondent.

Order below Exh.1

1.This second bail application filed by the applicant u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in C.R. No.I­193/2020 for the offences punishable u/s.420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC registered with Sarkarwada Police Station. The earlier bail application of the applicant is rejected vide order dated 12.11.2020.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that :
The informant Bhalchandra Vanji Wani, aged around 85 years, is the owner of property bearing Plot No.82, Survey No.58/1/2/1, village Gangapur, Nashik, which he purchased on 27.05.1976. However, one Imran Ayyub Tamboli (present applicant) got a bogus power of attorney executed in his favour bearing registration no.NSN6/1976 of 2020 wherein he was authorized to deal with the said plot of land. Thereafter, the said Imran Ayyub Tamboli sold the said plot of land to Samadhan Deelip Sonawane vide registered agreement bearing No.NSN­1/3288 of 2020. Thereafter, on the report of the informant the aforesaid offence is registered.

3.The Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant that applicant was arrested on 29.10.2020 and since then he is in jail. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the alleged property is still in the possession of the informant. In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate also filed on record the copy of 7/12 extract. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the offence was registered on 28.07.2020 and the investigation is almost complete. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the complainant being the owner of property, the present applicant who has allegedly sold the said property to Samadhan Sonawane based on allegedly forged power of attorney and the purchaser Samadhan Sonawane have settled the matter between themselves. The purchaser Samadhan Sonawane has been repaid the entire consideration amount to the applicant. In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant filed copy of consent term which is to be filed before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik in RCS No.373 of 2020. The Ld.

Advocate further submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail since the same would amount to pre­trial punishment. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the present applicant is permanent resident of Nashik and is ready to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while releasing him on bail.

Accordingly, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the applicant be released on bail.

4.The Ld. A.P.P Shri.Kapse submitted that the offence is serious in nature. The Ld. APP further submitted that the informant is about 85 years of age and the present applicant prepared bogus adhar card and other documents of the informant. The present applicant presented some imposter as the informant and got registered power of attorney executed in his favour. The Ld. APP further submitted that on making inquiry about the said imposter the present applicant has given evasive answers. The Ld. APP further submitted that 3 of the accused including the imposter and 2 witnesses to the sale deed executed in favour of accused no.1 Samadhan Dilip Sonawane are still absconding. The Ld. APP
submitted that there is forgery of valuable security authorizing the present applicant to sell the property and receive money and the same attracts life imprisonment. The Ld. APP further submitted that the present applicant is habitual offender. The Ld. APP further submitted that only because settlement has taken place does entitle the applicant for bail. It was further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he may pressurize the witnesses and may commit similar offence. The learned APP accordingly prayed for the rejection of the application.

5.In view of the facts mentioned in the application, following points arise for my determination and I have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons stated below :
POINTS FINDINGS (1) Whether the applicant is entitled for bail ? .. Yes
(2) What order ? .. As per final order.

REASONS

6.I have perused the documents. Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.

7.It is settled principle that while considering application for bail, court need not conduct preliminary trial of the case or consider probability of the guilt or innocence of the accused. While considering the application for bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of the accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character and standing of the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and the larger interest of the public and State.

8.Perusal of the documents, show that the present applicant has got registered power of attorney executed in his favour through one imposter who represented himself as Bhalchandra Vanji Wani. Perusal of documents further shows that in pursuance of the said power of attorney the present applicant showed the property belonging to the informant to accused no.1 vide sale deed dated 02.07.2020 bearing registration No.NSN­1/3228/2020. While executing the said sale deed the present applicant even gave false declaration before Sub. Registrar of Assurance that the owner Bhalchandra Vani has executed valid power of attorney in his favour.

9.Perusal of the documents and other investigation papers shows that the present applicant has sold the property belonging to the informant by preparing bogus documents and have accepted part payment to the extent of Rs.7,50,000/­ from accused no.1, Shri.

Sonawane. Perusal of the document prima­facie shows that the present applicant has not only cheated the informant but has also cheated the accused no.1.

10.As far as antecedents of applicant is concerned, the Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is another offence registered against the present applicant, but in the same he has already been released on pre­arrest bail.

11.The Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant filed on record consent term to be filed in RCS No.373 of 2020 filed by the informant for cancellation of the forged sale deed. The Ld. Advocate has also filed copy of the said consent term. The informant Shri.Bhalchandra Vanji Wani is present in person and have admitted the terms of the consent term. Even the accused no.1 Samadhan Dilip Sonawane is present in the Court and he submitted that he has received the entire consideration amount of Rs.7,50,000/­ which he paid to the applicant.

12.Considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and even the accused no.1 has received the amount paid to the applicant, in my opinion, the applicant can be released on bail.

Hence, application deserves to be rejected.

Accordingly, I pass the following order :
ORDER

(a) The application is allowed.

(b) The applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing P.R. & S.B. of Rs.25,000/­ with one or two surety of like amount.

(c) The applicant should furnish two documents about his identity proof and two documents in respect of identity proof of his relatives.

(d) Bail in concerned Court.

Digitally signed by Santoshkumar Tribhuandutt Santoshkumar Pandey Tribhuandutt Date: 2020.12.11
Pandey 15:41:20 +0530 Place : Nashik. (S.T. Pandey) Additional Sessions Judge­ 4, Date : 11­12­2020. Nashik.