MHNS010034662022
Order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Bail
Application No. 851/2022.
1.

This is an application preferred by accused Swati Bhaskar
Patil for bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No. I­184/2022
registered in Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik for the offence
punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC r/w.
34.
2.

In short, the applicants submit that she is innocent and
has not committed any offence. Applicant is a junior advocate
practicing at District & Sessions Court, Nashik since 2018. She has
nothing to do with the sale deed and she is not beneficiary. Before
execution of the sale deed present applicant has taken proper
precaution for the purpose of giving identification as the concerned
person has produced Adhar Card and Pan Card with his name Sanjiv
Chaudhari. It is settled position of law that advocate cannot be held
liable unless and until there are allegation of conspiracy with other
accused. FIR does not reflect any such allegation. She is ready to
abide by the terms and condition. Hence, prayed that application is
allowed.
3.

Say was called of Investigating Officer he has objected
this application on the count that wanted accused Radhika Patil and
Anil Patil are relative of the applicant which reflects that her
involvement in the offence is not profession but personal to benefit
her relatives which reflects her involvement. Applicant has identified
the impersonated person and with her help the said person has to be
found. The original sale deed has to be seized. They have to inquire
whether accused persons have entered into agreement for sale of the
property 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 essential. Hence, prayed that
application be rejected.
4.

Heard Learned Advocate for the accused and Learned
APP for the State. It is submitted by advocate for the applicant that
she is practicing advocate. She has not benefited from the
transaction. She has merely identified the parties with whom she has
no interest. Applicant has identified the person on the basis of
documents. Hence, prayed that bail be granted. On the other hand
Ld. APP for the state has objected this application on the ground that
the purchaser of the property is the real sister of the applicant and
her brother in law is witness. No consideration amount has been
paid, original documents is with the applicant for which custody is
required. Hence, prayed that application be rejected.
5.

Perused the case papers and the say of the investigating
officer. At the outset it is seen that sister of the applicant has got the
sale deed executed by a person who is not the real owner of the
property. Complainant has contended that Pan Card, the Adhar Card
and photographs filed alongwith the sale deed is not his. It appears
that applicant has identified the parties by stating that ^nLr,sot d:u
ns.kk&;kauk O;Drh’k% vksG[krkr o R;kaph vksG[k iVforkr-* In view of this noting it is clear
that applicant has identified the person who has executed the
document. The said facts clearly reflect that applicant has identified
the impersonated person. It has come on record that Radhika Patil is
the beneficiary of the document to which Anil Patil has signed as
witness. They both are relatives of the applicant. Hence, it can not be
said that applicant has identified the impersonated person in
professional capacity. Advocate for the applicant has relied upon
Mohan Kothimbire Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in ALL MR
Crimes 2014 of 4847. Perused the citation wherein it is seen that
application was moved u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. and after considering the
charge­sheet and statement of witnesses Hon’ble Court held that
charge­sheet does not disclose commission of offence. However, the
fact of the above case will not be applicable as it is relied at the stage
of anticipatory bail.
5.

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 as she has
identified the impersonated person as well as to secure his presence.
Recovery of the original sale deed is to be made as well as they have
to inquired from where and from whom forged Adhar Card and Pan
Card was prepared of the impersonated person. All the above
grounds are justified for grant of custody.
6.

Thus, considering the nature of allegations, prima­facie case is
not made out by applicants for grant of pre­arrest bail. Hence, I pass
the following order :
ORDER
1]
The application is hereby rejected.

2]
Inform concerned Police Station accordingly.

Nashik.
Date : 07/07/2022.

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