1 16 aba 140.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 140 OF 2021

Amit Motilal Badki

..vs..

State of Maharashtra, thr. P.S.O. and anr.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

and Registrar'

s orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri J.S. Chilotra, Advocate for Applicant.

Shri H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for Non-applicants.

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATED : 09/08/2021

Heard.

2.

By this application, the applicant is seeking

for pre-arrest bail in Crime No.91 of 2016 registered

with Imamwada Police Station, District Nagpur for the

offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468,

471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3.

At the instance of report lodged by the plot

purchaser namely Ananta Rahate, the crime was

initially registered against three co-accused namely

Umakant Mendhe, Narendra Parate and Harshad

Chikhale, who were partners of M/s. Gharkul

Infratech. It is alleged that M/s Gharkul Infratech was

indulging into real estate business. The informant

Ananta Rahate has agreed to purchase a plot No.4 in

2 16 aba 140.2021

consideration of Rs.7,50,789/- from M/s. Gharkul

Infratech. On the date of agreement dated

18.12.2009, the informant (purchaser) has paid

partial amount of Rs.3,00,300/- and accordingly,

agreement was executed by the co-accused Umakant

Mendhe on behalf of M/s Gharkul Infratech.

4.

It is contended that the accused have

prepared forged and fabricated documents about

recommendation for N.A permission for said entire

piece of land bearing Khasara number 116.

Particularly, the accused has forged seal and signature

of Nagpur Improvement Trust to prepare false

document of recommendation for N.A. and

accordingly, by use of fraudulent document, obtained

N.A. permission from the Collector. On that basis, the

vendors (M/s Gharkul Infratech) sold total 59 plots.

However, sale-deed was not executed in favour of the

informant, hence the report.

5.

It is the applicant’s contention that he is no

way concerned with the alleged transaction. He was

merely working as a office boy in the office of M/s.

Gharkul Infratech. However, he has been falsely

implicated in the case. According to the applicant, his

name is not mentioned in the First Information

Report, but in the charge-sheet filed against the three

co-accused, he was merely cited as a witness. It is

submitted that, this Court has granted pre-arrest

3 16 aba 140.2021

protection vide it’s common order dated 20.10.2016

to all three co-accused who are named in the First

Information Report. It is argued that, till date thrice

Police recorded the applicant’s statement and

therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation

after lapse of five years.

6.

The non-applicant/State resisted bail by filing

affidavit-in-reply. According to the State, the applicant

was working as an agent and used to prepare

documents for procuring N.A. Permission. The

applicant was specifically entrusted with the work of

obtaining N.A. permission for Khasara No.116 on

behalf of co-accused. The applicant has prepared

entire documents for seeking N.A. permission and

submitted them in the office of Collector. Particularly,

the applicant had prepared forged recommendation

letter of N.I.T. for facilitating grant of N.A. permission.

During the course of investigation, the fraudulent act

committed by the applicant was unrevealed. The

Police recorded variou