Cri. Bail Application No.856 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.856 of 2022
CNR No.MHNS010035072022
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. Vaishyampayan for Applicant/Accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondent/State.
Ld. Adv.Shri. Mahendra M. Shinde for Intervenor/Complainant.
Shri. Sandip R. Pawar P.S.I. (I.O.) present.

ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(Delivered on 03r August, 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,
Cri. Bail Application No.856 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
2
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 invested the amount and initially, the applicant paid the
profit out of the same. Thereafter, 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 lay­
out. 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.7 and strongly
objected on the ground that the application is not maintainable as
there is no change in circumstances. The investigation is in progress
and is now stand still. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is
necessary. Original sale­deed, which is in possession of the applicant
Cri. Bail Application No.856 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
3
is required to be seized and so also the amount is to be recovered
from the applicant. The offences alleged are serious in nature. In the
investigation, it revealed that the said applicant is the 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. Already two
anticipatory bail applications No. 140 of 2022 and No.362 of 2022
filed by the applicant came to be rejected. The order passed by this
Court in anticipatory bail application No.140 of 2022 is confirmed by
the Hon’ble High Court and therefore prayed to reject the application.
4.

In this matter, the complainant/intervenor, intervened
through an Advocate. Her intervention came to be allowed and her
Ld. Advocate was allowed to assist the Ld. A.P.P. and filed written
submissions and make brief oral submissions.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant, Ld. A.P.P. for State,
Ld. Advocate for the complainant/intervenor and the I.O. in person.
Perused the written submissions of complainant/intervenor, which is
at Exh.10. So also gone through the entire material placed on record.
6.

Upon hearing and going through the material placed on
record, what can be gathered is that this is the third anticipatory bail
applications filed by the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that,
the vehicle is seized by the I.O. and the sale­deed was given by the
Office of the Sub­Registrar to the complainant. Therefore, there is a
change in the circumstances. It is a fact that, the I.O. had seized the
vehicle. As far as, the seizure of sale­deed is concerned, in this
regard, this Court in anticipatory bail No.362 of 2022 has given a
finding. Therefore, one can not say that, there is a change in
Cri. Bail Application No.856 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
4
circumstances. Therefore, this Court finds that, there is no change in
circumstances except the fact that, the vehicle is seized. Therefore,
the application in hand is not maintainable.
7.

As far as the merits of this case is concerned, this Court
as well as the Hon’ble High Court have categorically observed that,
the custodial interrogation of the applicant with the Police is
necessary, so as to recover the vehicle as well as the original sale­
deed. Moreover, it was further observed that, the documents, which
are seized during the investigation are required to be confronted to
the applicant and therefore custodial interrogation of applicant is
necessary. It is the case of the applicant that, she had repay more
amount, then the amount received by her. This Court finds that, she
can say and explained all these facts during her custodial
interrogation to the I.O. It is an allegation that, the original sale­deed
is with the applicant, but the applicant has filed an extract of the
register of the Sub­Registrar Office, wherein it is shown that, the sale­
deed was received by the complainant. It is not the case of the
complainant that, she did not receive the sale­deed from the Office of
the Sub­Registrar Office. In fact, it is the case of the complainant that,
the office boy of the applicant, who accompanied the complainant to
the Office of Sub­Registrar had taken the original sale­deed in his
possession from the complainant and gave it to the applicant.
Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court again
reiterate that, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.
Filing of this application is an abuse of process of Law because prior
to this, twice anticipatory bail applications came to be rejected by this
Court and the order of this Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble High
Court. Since last seven months, the investigation is stand still because
of the applicant.

Cri. Bail Application No.856 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
5
8.

As far as the other grounds that, the applicant requires a
surgery and her father is admitted in the Hospital because of the
tension of this case is concerned, this Court finds that, the liberty of
the person and the right of the Police, to investigate the matter is
required to be balanced. The balance in this case tilt’s in favour of the
Police. In the result, the application fails. Hence, the order.
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.856/2022 stands rejected.

2.

Inform concerned Respondent/Police Station accordingly.
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Place : Nashik.
Date : 03/08/2022
Digitally signed by
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN SHAIKH
Date: 2022.08.03
11:49:33 +0530
(M. H. Shaikh)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.