Balasaheb @ Balkrishna S/O Ramchandra Labde v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date:
2023.04.15 18:07:47 +0530 MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2926 OF 2021 Balasaheb @ Balkrushna s/o Ramchandra Labde ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
...Respondents
.........
Mr. Bhumkar R. P. a/w Mr. Bhumkar N. R. for the Applicant. Ms Veera Shinde, APP for the State.
Mr. Chidambar Gavnekar for Respondent No. 2.
.........
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATED : 5 APRIL 2023 P.C. :- This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail. 2.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 211 of 2021 registered at Khalapur Police Station, Raigad for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 472, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and perused the First Information Report. 1 / 9
4.
According to the prosecution, the present applicant and other co-accused has established fake and bogus Bhoodan Samittee by name Maharashtra Gramdan Navnirman Samittee (hereinafter referred to as Gramdan Samittee). It is alleged that the present applicant, who is Secretary of said Gramdan Samittee in connivance with Revenue Officer got deleted the names of the complainant and witnesses from 7/12 extracts of land owned by them on the ground that the said lands were sold to them by original bhoodan allottee in contravention of terms of allotment. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused thereafter got mutated the name of Gramdan Samittee in 7/12 extracts of the said lands. It is alleged that the applicants and other co-accused thereafter sold the said lands to Builders, etc.
5.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Social Worker and Secretary of Gramdan Samittee and it was established by Acharya Vinoba Bhave in the year 1961. It is submitted that as the land in question were sold by the original allottee in breach of terms and condition of allotment, the application was moved by the present applicant for restoring the said land to Gramdan Samittee. It is submitted that the dispute is of purely civil nature and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. It is thus submitted that the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.
6.
On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent/State submits that Gramdan Samittee in question is fake and bogus and it is not approved by the Government. It is submitted that the lands of the 2 / 9
complainant and the witnesses were transferred to the builders and the persons who are not eligible for huge consideration, which according to the prosecution is about ten crores. It is submitted that the applicant and other co-accused pocketed the said consideration. It is submitted that even as per Maharashtra Gramdan Act, the Collector is the competent authority and thus Tahsildar ought not to have considered the application filed by the applicant for restoration of land. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.
7.
On 18 November 2022, this Court passed the following order:
"The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that after the land in question was ordered to be returned to Maharashtra Gramdan Navnirman Samittee, they allotted it to third party. The applicant shall file additional affidavit which should contain criteria adopted by Maharashtra Gramdan Navnirman Samittee for allotment of land in question to third party and whether any monetary consideration was received towards said allotment. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, stand over to 29th November 2022. Interim protection granted earlier to continue till the next date." 8.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the applicant has filed the affidavit dated 2 December 2022. For the ease of reference same is scanned and reproduced below:
3 / 9
4 / 9
5 / 9
6 / 9
7 / 9
8 / 9
9.
The affidavit is vague. It is not spelt out as to how much amount they have received, by way of donation or otherwise. It appears from the papers of investigation that though the bhoodan land can not be auctioned in one of the instances, the applicant gave letter that Gramdan Samittee had no objection for auction and received Rs. 9,60,000/-. It appears from the papers of investigation that after taking the lands of the complainant and witnesses, the applicant and other co-accused had allotted them to the Builders, etc. According to the prosecution, the government valuation of the lands of the complainant and witnesses is more than ten crores. In my view, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary to unearth whole conspiracy and how many such allotment they have made. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. The Application is rejected.
10.
At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, interim order dated 9 December 2021 shall remain in operation for the period of three weeks from today.
( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) 9 / 9