Cri. Bail Application No.362 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1) 1 IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK, AT – NASHIK. ( Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh) Criminal Bail Application No.362 of 2022

CNR No. MHNS010012352022

Sonali Sahebrao Pawar
Age : 34 years, Occ : Business
R/o : Plot No.38/494/1­A,
Ashok Nagar, Satpur, Nashik. … Applicant/Accused.

V/S

State of Maharashtra
Through – P.I. Ambad Police Station (C.R. No.I­56/2022)… Respondent/State.

Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Shri. Shivaji Vanare for Applicant/Accused.

Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondent/State.

Shri. Sandip R. Pawar, P.S.I. (I.O.) present.

ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(D elivered on 22nd March, 2022)

1.This is an application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of pre­arrest bail in C. R. No. I­56/2021 registered with the respondent Ambad Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120­B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that the applicant was having an account in the AXIS Bank, where she got acquainted with the daughter of complainant. The applicant asked the complainant and her daughter that she can arrange for shops, and plots for them, if they invest the amount and after sale of those plots and shops, whatever the profit will come, they will share it. Plots and shops were of the defaulters, who had obtained the loan from the Bank. The complainant paid time to time the sum of Rs.72,18,600/­ to the applicant.

Thereafter, the applicant showed them the plot bearing Survey No.58/4, plot No.22 of the lay­out. City Survey No.2189 admeasuring 265.00 Sq. Mtrs. The applicant said that the said plot belongs one Mahesh Bhalchandra Kapadnis and accordingly a sale­deed is required to be executed. Therefore, the associate of the applicant, one Ganesh Atre engaged the applicant No.4 to give public notice and call for objections, if any. Thereafter, the public notice was given in the newspaper and within stipulated period, despite receiving objection, the applicant No.4 issued false certificate that he did not receive any objection and thereafter also identified the seller and buyer. The seller was not the person and he was personified as Mahesh Kapadnis. The complainant gave three Cheques bearing No.024248, 024249 and 024250 to the applicant. So also the applicant purchased the TATA Motors Company Hairier vehicle bearing No. MH­15/HG­7958 in the name of the complainant and was using the same and thereafter did not pay the installment as agreed. Therefore, in this way, the applicant and the other accused persons have cheated the complainant. Thereafter, she lodged the written complaint with the Police, which was inquired and the Crime was registered.

3.Respondent filed their say vide Exh.6 and strongly objected on the ground that the offence is serious in nature. The applicant has received the amount from the complainant and relatives on the pretext of giving the shops and plots and share in the profits. The said amount is to be recovered. In the investigation, it revealed that the said applicant is master­mind of the Crime and she had sold the plots and in that regard investigation is to be carried­out. The arrested accused Ganesh Atre is associate of the applicant and it has come in the investigation that they were together and they had committed the offence. The investigation is in progress. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. The vehicle is to be seized. Already Anticipatory bail application no­ 140/22 filed by the applicant came to be rejected.

The said order is confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court and therefore prayed to reject the application.

4.Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant, Ld. A.P.P. for State and the I.O. in person.

5.Upon hearing and going through the material placed on record, what can be gathered is that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant. There is no change in circumstances which were there while rejecting the earlier bail application. Just because applicant got some documents after rejection of bail application by this court as well as the Hon’ble Bombay High court that does not mean that there is a change in circumstances. This court as well as the Hon’ble High court has elaborately dealt with all the submissions made by the parties. This court does not find any change in circumstances.

6.As far as the aspect that the sale deed was handover to the complainant is concerned, this court finds that it is the allegation that the sale deed was taken by the person who was send by applicant and therefore as per the prosecution sale deed is with the applicant and it is to be recovered, therefore this court finds that the application is devoid of merits and requires to be rejected. Hence the order

ORDER

1.Criminal Bail Application No.362/2022 stands rejected.

2.Inform concerned Respondent/Police Station accordingly.

Digitally signed MUSHTAQUE by MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN HUSSAIN SHAIKH SHAIKH Date: 2022.03.23 11:15:37 +0530 Place : Nashik. (M. H. Shaikh) Date : 22/03/2021 Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.