CNR MHNS010035502020
Order below Exh.1
in Cri. Bail Application No.1239/2020.
{ Narendra Vijay Singh Vs. State }
This is an application under section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.
2.

Brief facts giving rise to this application can be narrated
as follows.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.
310/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 416, 420,
463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120­B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik on
accusation
that
the
applicant­accused
and
co­accused,
in
furtherance of their common intention, prepared and executed false
and forged document i.e. sale deed on 07.11.2015 pretending that it
is executed by the informant Prakash Choudhari for Rs.16,00,000/­
in favour of applicant­accused who has signed the document as a
purchaser of the property mentioned therein and thereby cheated
the informant.
3.

The applicant contends that he has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is falsely implicated in
this case. According to him, the sale deed dated 06.04.1988 is in his
possession, he has also issued title verification notice before the
disputed sale deed. Thus, the applicant­accused come up with the
plea of bona fide purchaser. He has also paid Rs.16,00,000/­ to the
vendor as total consideration through two cheques which are duly
honoured. Nothing is to be seized or recovered from him as he has
handed over copies of all the documents for investigation.

He is
..2..

ready to co­operate in further investigation.

His custodial
interrogation is not, at all, required as the case is based only on
documentary evidence. He is having permanent place of abode and
roots in the society, therefore, possibility of fleeing from justice does
not arise.

Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the
accusations, he has prayed for prearrest bail.
4.

This Court, after hearing the applicant, granted interim
protection and show cause notice was issued to the concerned police
station calling upon it as to why interim prearrest bail should not be
made absolute.
5.

In response to the show cause notice, the respondent
State filed its reply at Exh.8 and 9 and denied all the adverse
allegations made by the applicant and reiterated the prosecution
case. It is contended that there is prima­facie sufficient material on
record to show involvement of applicant­accused in the commission
of offence. It is also argued that the statement of applicant­accused
is recorded on 23.06.2020 by Mumbai Naka Police and at that time,
the applicant came to know about the offence, then why he did not
file any complaint or report against the dummy seller or other co­
accused. Huge property is involved in such type of offence. Further,
the custody of the applicant regarding the titled document of
informant i.e. the document executed in the year 1988 is also
suspicious because there is no record in Sub Registrar Office as to
who has received the custody of the said sale deed. The applicant­
accused trying to colour this criminal act to a civil nature by filing
caveat in Civil Court.

Parties have distributed the transaction
amount amongst them. If he is released on prearrest bail, there will
Cri. Bail Application No.1239/2020.
..3..

be hurdle in further investigation. On these lines, the respondent
has prayed for rejection of his application.
6.

Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the
learned Public Prosecutor.

I have also perused the investigation
papers made available by the Investigating Officer. The allegations
against the applicant are well founded. The document shows that
the role attributed to the applicant­accused is of a purchaser. The
document produced by both the parties prima­facie shows that the
applicant has paid the consideration amount of Rs.16 lakh by way of
two cheques and the cheques are duly honoured.
7.

The applicant has also produced the title verification
notice which was allegedly issued by him prior to entering into this
transaction through his advocate. But the statement of concerned
witness {Advocate} shows that the said notice was issued at the
instance of Raju Jagtap – one of the co­accused. Thus, prima­facie,
it is clear that this notice was not issued by the applicant. Further,
the statement of one of witness, namely, Meera Damodar Sapte
shows that the photographs of her husband – Damodar Sapte,
resident of Umbargaon, Wapi are used in this transaction as
photographs of informant – Prakash Choudhari. Thus, the
documents prima­facie show that the applicant­accused knows very
well as to when, where and how the documents were forged. The
scope of investigation appears to be very wide. In order to carry out
proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicant
appears to be necessary. If the applicant is released on prearrest
bail, there will be hurdle in further investigation. Considering the
nature and gravity of accusations and fact that the custodial
..4..

interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the progress of
investigation, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not made
out the case for grant of prearrest bail. With this, I proceed to pass
the following order.
ORDER
Application stands rejected.
Seema
Chandrakant
Jadhav
03 October, 2020.
rd
Digitally signed by
Seema Chandrakant
Jadhav
Date: 2020.10.03
15:28:39 +0530
( Smt. S.C. Jadhav )
Additional Sessions Judge­8,
Nashik.