1
Cri. Bail Application No. 951 of 2022
ORDER BELOW EX. 01 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION
NO. 951 OF 2022
{Mithila Ashok Khatale @ Mithila Satyajeet Narode and another vs.
The State of Maharashtra through Indira Nagar Police Station}
This is an application under section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in crime no. 120
of 2022 registered with Indira Nagar Police Station for the offences
punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of the I. P.
C.
02]
The applicants contended that false and fabricated case
is registered against them. The matter pertains to dispute of civil
nature. Nothing is to be required from them. Their custodial
interrogations are not required. The revenue record is in the name of
the L. Rs. of original owner. Accordingly, the POA of them executed
the sale deed. They have deep roots in the society. This is their first
offence. They are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the
court.

Hence, they have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail
application.
03]
APP filed say at Ex. 6A and I. O. filed say at Ex. 07. The
complainant filed say at Ex. 13. They have opposed the bail
application. They have stated that the offence is of serious nature.
The property was sold by original owner to one Manisha Khivansara
in the year 1991. Without inquiry of this fact, the property sold by all
the accused and cheated the complainant. Manisha has lifted the
property to the complainant. Yet, the investigation is to be done and
the documents are to be seized. In the other rights column, the name
of Manisha was there in the 7/12 extract. Overall, they have opposed
the bail application and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
04]
Heard the learned counsel for the accused, learned APP
and learned counsel for the complainant. They have argued as per
2
their stands taken.
05]
I have gone through the application, say, arguments,
documents and police papers. In this case, the original owner sold the
plot no. 84 to Manisha Khivansara. She has gifted this property to her
brother i.e. the complainant on 24.04.2012. It appears to the court
that the sale deed was of the year 1991 and Manisha’s name was not
mutated by her in the revenue record. In the year 1992, the original
owner died leaving behind two daughters whose names appeared in
the revenue record. How the name of Manisha was entered in the
other rights column in the 7/12 extract is not explained by any of the
parties. Even the I. O. has not produced any documents to show that
how the name of Manisha appeared in the other rights column and
how her name was deleted. The entire mistake took place because
Manisha has not mutated her name in the revenue record and the
accused has not searched that whether any such sale deed took place.
The L. Rs. of the original owner i.e. her daughters were minors and so
they do not know about the transaction executed by their father in
favour of Manisha. The mistake appears to be because of the above
facts.

Indeed, the complainant appears to be the owner of the
property. All the documents are available in public domain with the
public office. The custodial interrogation of the accused is not
required. Accused have no criminal antecedent and have roots in the
society. The offence took place prior to 15 years and the FIR is
registered recently.

Looking to the same, on suitable terms and
conditions, the accused can be released on bail. Hence, the following
order.
ORDER
01]
Application for anticipatory bail is allowed on
the same terms and conditions as given below
3
Cri. Bail Application No. 951 of 2022
Ex. 4 i.e. interim bail order and interim
anticipatory bail is hereby confirmed.
02]
The applicants should attend the Police station
in between 11.00 a. m. to 02.00 p. m. from
dated 25.08.2022 and 26.08.2022 and help the
police in investigation.

03]
Inform the concerned Police station accordingly.
RATHI
ROOPESH
RAMSWARUP
Date : 22.08.2022
Digitally signed
by RATHI
ROOPESH
RAMSWARUP
Date: 2022.08.24
16:29:20 +0530
(R. R. Rathi)
Additional Sessions Judge-6,
Nashik.