Vittal Bhimraj Pathole And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra

9_ABA1903_22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1903 OF 2022 Vittal Bhimraj Pathole and another ...

Applicants Vs.

State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent Mr. Vinod Joshi a/w. Ms. Darshana Kadekot and Mr. Yogendra More for Applicants.

Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE :

SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 P.C. :

Heard.

2.

Soharab Homi Pavri was an owner of the property, which is the subject matter of the offence in question. He executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the present applicants, which was duly registered on 18.10.2019 whereby the power to negotiate sale was granted. 3.

Based on the said registered Power of Attorney for limited purpose executed on 18.10.2019, applicants have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to sell the said property of the principal for a consideration of Rs.5,25,00,000/- in favour of one Gurubindarsingh Pritamsingh Bachchhar. The aforesaid background has prompted registration of the crime as the applicants were not armed with an authority to enter into the agreement for sale of property. 4.

It is submitted by counsel appearing for the applicants that the entire offence is based on documents and that being so the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not warranted. According to him, the co-accused Gurubindarsingh Pritamsingh Bachchhar, who was to purchase the property is already released on regular bail after custodial interrogation. He would further invite my attention to the recitals of the 1/2

9_ABA1903_22.doc Memorandum of Understanding so as to urge that part of the amount of consideration was to be received by the principal i.e., the owner of the property. As such, it is claimed that there was no motive to commit offence.

5.

Learned APP would oppose the prayer based on the recitals in the registered Power of Attorney.

6.

I have considered the submissions.

7.

Clause 7 of the registered Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2019 in categorical terms gives limited right / authority in favour of the applicants to negotiate the deal with the parties but it does not authorize the applicants to either enter into an agreement of sale or to execute the sale deed.

8.

In this background, without there being any authority to the applicants, they have executed the Memorandum of Understanding in the form of agreement of sale on 25.10.2019 on behalf of the complainant - owner of the property based on the Power of Attorney. Once the Power of Attorney does not spell out any such right in favour of the applicant, in my opinion, the claim of the prosecution about the necessary ingredients for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is very much established.

9.

In the aforesaid background, having regard to the fact that the applicants' prima facie involvement in the offence can be inferred, particularly when they have already received part of the consideration, no case for grant of bail is made out. Application fails and the same is rejected.

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) Minal Parab 2/2