The main legal point established is the reliance on evidence of forgery and fabrication, including expert opinions and discrepancies in documents, to support the prosecution's case and reject the application for anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail in C.R. No. I-320 of 2020 registered with Khadakpada Police Station, Kalyan for Sajakali Jamadar offences under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. (for short "IPC") The First Information Report (for short "FIR") was lodged on 24th September, 2020.

2. The case of the complainant is that, he is in construction business in the name as Om Sai Construction and Developers. The applicant No.1 was 50% partner. Partnership Deed was executed on 27th January, 2014. Land bearing Survey No. 55/1/B admeasuring 2080 Sq. mtrs. was purchased from Ramabai Mirkute and others by registered Sale Deed. The Sale Deed was signed by the complainant and applicant No.1. Subsequently the applicant No.1 created dispute with the complainant and tried to remove him from firm. He was threatened. Due to threat complainant shifted to Nashik. In December, 2017 when he had come to Kalyan, he visited the plot. He found that construction work was going on. He made inquiry and found that Retirement Deed from the partnership firm by showing that the Retirement Deed was fabricated. The complainant had obtained handwriting expert opinion which opined that the signatures of the complainant was forged. Till 2020 the name of the complainant was shown in the office of the registrars from the partners of the said firm the building was constructed. Flats were sold and the accused had misappropriated huge amount by way of fabricated document. The applicant No.2 was inducted as partner.

The applicant No.2 is father of applicant No.1. The FIR was registered and the investigation proceeded.

3. The applicants had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which has been rejected by order dated 5th November, 2020.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants have filed false complaint. The dispute, if any, is of civil nature. There is delay in lodging the FIR. In the complaint itself the complainant has stated that he had visited the spot in 2017. Thus, he was aware about the construction going on the plot of land. But in spite of that the FIR was lodged in 2020. It is submitted that the applicant No.1 had paid substantial amount to the original owners of the property at the time of execution of Sale Deed which is evident from the bank statement. The complainant was a dormant partner. He had retired from partnership firm. Several cases are registered against him. He is not available for investigation in respect to the complaint lodged against them. It is further submitted that the subsequent document was executed by the complainant in accordance with the memorandum of understanding executed between them on 3rd December, 2014, in which it was mentioned that in the event, the cooperation of the parties is required, the parties to the memorandum of understanding would cooperate. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The building is already constructed and flats are allotted to the purchasers. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Devi and Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan1. He also relied upon decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nareshkumar and ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan 2. It is submitted that the matter relates to documents and the applicants need not be subjected to custodial interrogation.

5. Learned APP submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the applicants were involved in forgery of document. The Deed of Retirement is forged and fabricated to oust the complainant from the partnership firm. The complainant has been deprived of his share in the partnership firm. It is further submitted that if the case of the applicant is to be accepted that the complainant has retired from partnership on 25 th November, 2014, the question of executing the document subsequently does not arise. The signatures of the complainant were forged. Fla