MILIND AWCHIT BAISANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.34 of 2020 registered with Dhule City Police Station, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Their application with similar prayer came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, vide order 10.09.2020 in Criminal Bail Application No. 790 of 2020.

(2.) The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The informant is the real son of applicant No.1. As per the allegations made in the complaint, in the month of November 2018, the informant has come to know about the execution of the false sale deed of the plot belonging to him, however, the complaint came to be lodged on 07.02.2020 without explaining the cause for such an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The learned senior counsel submits that the informant was hardly 20 years of age at the time when the said property was purchased. Applicant No.1 being the father had purchased the property in the name of his son. The learned senior counsel submits that there is a dispute in the family and in consequence thereof, after an inordinate delay, the complaint came to be lodged. The applicant in order to show his bonafide has deposited the said consideration amount of the plot to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- before this Court. Applicant No.2 is the person who was brought in the Registry Office for execution of the said sale deed of the property standing in the name of the present informant. There is no criminal history. Because of the family dispute, if the property has been sold in the manner as alleged, the applicants cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period as a matter of punishment. The investigation is almost over and formality of filing charge-sheet is only remained. The applicants may be released on bail.

(3.) The learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that though there is a delay in lodging the complaint, however, prima facie there is evidence that applicant No.1 by doing the cheating by personation posed applicant No.2 as his son and executed the sale deed of the plot in favour of the other co-accused persons. The learned APP submits that even on 19.03.2020 in the similar manner, the applicants have executed the sale deed in respect of the agricultural land in favour of the same purchaser. Though the allegations have not been made in this complaint in this regard, however, supplementary statement of the informant came to be recorded on 29.05.2020, wherein the informant has made the allegations to that effect. The informant has come to know about the said transaction on 19.03.2020. The learned APP submits that the applicants have prepared the false and fabricated documents and cheated the informant by personation. Prima facie, there is a strong case against the applicants. The investigation is still in progress. The applicants may not be released on bail.