1
MHNS010035532022
Order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 877/2022.
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438
of Cr.P.C. in C.R.No. I­184/2022 registered against applicant Radhika Anil
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. She has purchased the property from the person
whose name is that of the complainant. Co­accused had shown the
documents of the property and keeping faith on him she has
purchased the property from him. She has seen the Adhar Card and
Pan Card and verified it and after that she has purchased the
property.

She has given three paper notice for three different
advocates to consider the objection. However, she has not received
any objection. There was no intention to cheat in fact she has been
cheated as co­accused has time to time received money from her and
misappropriated.

Complainant has filed RTS appeal before
Divisional Officer and obtained stay order. She has appeared and
has stated that she has been cheated, hence, there is no question of
cheating the complainant. She has adopted all the legal remedies to
verify the title of the property by inquiring with the neighbors which
reflects her intention. Offence is not applicable to her. She is ready
to abide by all the terms and condition. Hence, prayed that
application is allowed.

2
3.

Say was called of Investigating Officer he has objected
this application on the count that present applicant along with
impersonated person on the basis of forged documents has entered
into sale deed. With the help of applicant impersonated person has to
be search. Applicant has purchased the plot without original
documents even after having knowledge that she has direct
involvement in the transaction.

In the agreement it is seen that
payment was made by cash of Rs.21,60,000/­ which was given time
to time and cheque amount of Rs.23,40,000/­, however, except a
sum of Rs.1,40,000/­ no amount has been paid and thus it clearly
reflects that there was intention of cheating. The original document
is yet to be seized. 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 applicant has entered into transaction.
notice was issued before purchasing the property.

Thrice
Applicant has
entered into the transaction after checking the bonafide of the co­
accused. 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 in order to
locate the co­accused. 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
3
necessary for investigation.
6.

Perused the case papers and the say of the investigating
officer. At the outset it is seen that 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
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. Recovery of the original sale deed is yet to be
made. It has come in the say of the investigating officer that merely
payment of Rs.1,40,000/­ is made though the transaction has been
made of Rs. 45,00,000/­.

Even the applicant has entered into
transaction without verifying the original documents of the property.
Inquiry is to be made from where and from whom forged Adhar Card
and Pan Card was prepared of the impersonated person. All these
factors reflect the involvement of the applicant for which custody is
essential. 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.
Sd/­xxx
Nashik.
Date : 14/07/2022.

(V.S.Malkalpatte­Reddy)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.