TARMINDAR SINGH MEHTAB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application is moved for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A complaint is registered against the applicants/accused at the instance of Preeti Sharma, who is the real sister of the applicant/accused No. 1 It is the case of the complainant that her father Jaswant Singh Mehtab, approximately 80 years old, is residing alongwith the applicant/accused No. 1.

(2.) The applicant/accused No. 2 is the wife of the applicant/accused No. 1. The applicants/accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the sisters of applicant No. 2 and applicant/accused No. 5 is the mother of these sisters. It is the case of the complainant that her father is a patient and he is suffering from various diseases and especially he is a victim of Dementia and, therefore, does not remember anything and he is not mentally oriented due to dementia. He developed dementia nearly 2 years back and the Psychiatrists have certified in April, 2012 that he is suffering from Dementia. All the applicants are residing in the property of her father and have complete control over her father. All the applicants/accused by taking disadvantage of the age and the mental ailment of her father, had started grabbing the property of her father. The applicants/accused are not taking proper care of her father and they all prepared forged documents and also obtained documents fraudulently, signed and executed from her father, namely, Power of Attorney in favour of applicant No. 2. Also, bogus wills were got executed by the father in favour of the applicants/accused. A gift deed was also executed by the father in favour of the applicants/accused. Thus, it is the case of the complainant that all the applicants/accused, in connivance with each other, have tried to misappropriate the property of her father, valued at Rs. 10 crores and, therefore, she gave complaint. She presented the complaint before the learned Magistrate, 37th Court, Mumbai and the learned Magistrate gave directions u/s. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Senior Inspector, Azad Maidan Police Station to investigate the matter. Pursuant to the said directions, the police initiated investigation and they registered crime at MECR No. 2 of 2013 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 344, 347, 407, 408, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) MR . Shinde, learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the Complainant have opposed this application for anticipatory bail. It was submitted that the Mr. Jaswant Singh Mehtab is suffering from dementia since 2012 and many specialists have certified that due to dementia, there is a memory loss to a great extent. It is argued that Mr. Jaswant Singh Mehtab had paralytic stroke in 2008 and thereafter his health deteriorated. It is argued that Mr. Jaswant Singh Mehtab is unable to recognise his relatives. The applicants/accused took the opportunity to grab the property by manufacturing the forged documents especially Power of Attorney dated 11.11.2011 since 2008, three banking Power of Attorneys executed in favour of the applicant/accused No. 2 in January 2008. It was argued that the father of the complainant has allegedly prepared two wills -one dated 10.11.2011 and the other on 14.1.2012. It was further submitted that those wills are bogus and they are prepared by the applicants/accused. It was submitted that when Mr. Mehtab was suffering from dementia and his health had started deteriorating from 2008 and dementia from 2012, he was not at all in a mental and physical state to prepare the said wills. The thumb impressions and signatures appearing on the will are forged. The learned Counsel relied on the report of Dr. S.V. Khadilkar dated 5.1.2013 disclosing that he is suffering from irreversible dementia. His memory is impaired. It was further submitted that the gift deed dated 1.10.2012 was also prepared by the applicants/accused in which the entire property was gifted to the applicants/accused. However, now the said gift deed is missing. It was argued that the said gift deed is to be recovered from the applicants/accused. Learned Counsel for the Complainant and the learned APP therefore submitted that the custody of the applicants/accused is required. In support of his submissions, the learned Prosecutor relied on the case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632