Bombay High Court
Alam Khan S/O Abdullah Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 February, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
20 aba 31 21r.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
20 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.31 OF 2021
ALAM KHAN S/O ABDULLAH KHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshpande Gaurav L.
APP for Respondents/State : Mr. V. M. Kagne.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 01.02.2021.
PER COURT :
In this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with Crime No. 79/2020 registered with Dharmabad Police
Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
468, 471, 473 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In short the allegations as can be understood from the F.I.R. and the
papers of investigation are to the effect that the applicant in collusion with
the other accused managed to bring about fabricated certificates purporting
to be issued by the Municipal Council, to facilitate registration of sale deed
of the properties falling in the municipal area.
3. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that his name does not
find place in the F.I.R. He is neither an employee of the Municipal Council
nor has played any role in the alleged crime. It is merely on the basis of
statement of co-accused that he is now being implicated. He is an engineer.
There is no law to demonstrate that the certificates were indeed necessary
for registration of sale-deeds. The allegations are therefore improbable. He
is the only bread earner of his family. He is ready to cooperate the
20 aba 31 21r.odt
Investigating Officer. Co-accused Mohsin Khan Moin Khan and one more
accused have been granted regular bail by the concerned Magistrate.
Nothing is to be recovered from or discovered by the applicant. Considering
the principles laid down in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40 and catena of judgments of
the Supreme Court custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary
and he may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the application. He submits that it is a matter
of running of a systematic racket by several persons who have indulged in
fabrication to enable the interested persons in getting the sale-deeds
registered. There is a specific version of the Chief Officer and the
Superintendent of the Municipal Council about the certificates being forged
ones. Several such certificates have been traced. The applicant hand in
gloves with the other accused has forged and fabricated the certificates and
therefore his custodial interrogation is necessary.
5. Learned A.P.P. would further point out that the business partner of the
applicant has also been implicated albeit subsequently he has been granted
regular bail. A specific role is attributed to the applicant by two of such co-
accused. Since the matter is still under investigation, the applicant is not
entitled to claim anticipatory bail.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and the law laid
down by the Apex Court not only in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) and
even in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and another;
(2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1.
7. Obviously, the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. However
there should be two possibilities so that the name of a person would appear
in an F.I.R. Firstly, he should be known to the informant and secondly, even
the informant should able to comprehend the role attributable to the person
to be named in the F.I.R. Therefore, mere absence of name in the F.I.R. is
20 aba 31 21r.odt
inconsequential at the stage of investigation.
8. It is being alleged that several forged certificates purporting to have
been issued by the Municipal Council under the signature of the Chief
Officer have been brought into existence. Needless to state that it would not
be a handiwork of a person or two. There must have been a racket of a kind
involving several persons playing their own part in accomplishing the crime.
9. A specific role has been attributed to the applicant may be by the co-
accused Mohsin Khan Moin Khan who is the Superintendent serving in the
Municipal Council and co-accused Abdul Malik who happens to be the
business partner of the applicant. Since both of them have specifically
asserted and attributed a specific role to the applicant, in my considered
view he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail when
the investigation is at a nascent stage.
10. The Application is rejected.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
