The High Court rejected an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents. The applicant alleged forgery by a third party (Kalpesh Palan) claiming the respondents acted in collusion. No interference was found warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
220.11
rng
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2011
Shri Tukaram Trimbak Pimputkar .. Applicant
vs
M/s Asha Associates & ors .. Respondents
(through their partners)
1.Shri Vinod Gangaram Patel
2.Shri Dinesh Devshibhai Patel
3.Shri Dinesh RatanshibhaiPatel
4.Shri Nilesh Maganbhai Patel
5.Shri Jitendra Savjibhai Patel
6.Sou.Shanta Vinod Patel
7.Shri Shailesh Purushottambhai Patel
8.Smt Sharada Bupendrabhai Patel
9.Shri Vijay Ishwarbhai Patel
10.Smt Surya Dineshbhai Patel
11.Smt Ragini Dineshbhai Patel
12.Shri Prakash Raujibhai Patel
13.Smt Sonal Dineshbhai Patel
14.ShriRamesh PUrushottam Parasiya
15.State ofMaharashtra
(th.NRI Sagari police Stn)
.. Responents
Mr.S.V.Dhakephalkar for Applicant
Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for Respt nos. 1 to 14
Mr.S.R.Chitnis i.b Mr.Jeetendra Sachdev for
Respt no.15
CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J
DATE:24th August, 2011
P.C.
1. This Application is filed for cancellation of
220.11
anticipatory bail granted to the respondents in
Cri.No.166 of 2010 registered with NRI Sagari
police station, Navi Mumbai.
2.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the relevant documents. According to
the Applicant, he and one more person were
allotted certain land by the CIDCO under 12.5%
scheme. One Kalpesh Palan forged certain
documents including an Agreement for sale in his
favour, purported to have been executed by the
Applicant/ Complainant without making any
payment to him. The documents were also not
signed by him. On the basis of the forged
documents, said Kalpesh Palan entered into an
Agreement for sale of the land in favour of the
Respondents. It is contended that all these
documents were forged in collusion among Kalpesh
Palan and the Respondents. It appears that the
Respondents have also filed Special Civil Suit
for specific performance of the contract against
Kalpesh Palan as well as the present Applicant.
220.11
Anticipatory bail was granted to the Respondents
by the Sessions Court on the ground that there
was no contract between the Applicant and the
Respondents and the documents, which are
purported to have been signed by the present
Applicant, were not forged by the Respondents
but by Kalpesh Palan and the Respondent's claim
is based not on the disputed documents but under
a different agreement executed by Kalpesh Palan
in favour of the Respondents.
3.Admittedly, Kalpesh Palan was arrested and
later on he was granted bail. Taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of
the case, I find no valid reason to interfere in
the anticipatory bail granted to the
Respondents.
4. Therefore, Application stand rejected.
J.H.BHATIA, J
220.11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail granted to respondents should be cancelled given allegations of document forgery against a co-implicated accused.
Shri Tukaram Trimbak Pimputkar
M/s Asha Associates & ors
J.H. BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court