Shyamkumar S/O Bansilal Bhavik v. State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Yavatmal (City), P.S. Yavatmal

aba518.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.518/2015 (Shyamkumar s/o Bansilal Bhavik ..vs.. State of Maharashtra through PSO P. S. Yavatmal (City) Yavatmal) _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. M. R. Johrapurkar, Advocate for applicants Mr. Jawade, A.P.P. for non applicant-State.

CORAM : A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.

DATE :

DECEMBER 8, 2015.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In Crime No.882/2013 registered with Police Station, Yavatmal (City), Dist. Yavatmal for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the applicants have been arrayed as accused.

It is not in dispute that the sale deed in respect of which the impersonation is alleged to have been done was executed on 24.11.2000 and after 13 years, now, the FIR is registered against the applicants for the aforesaid offence.

Seen the FIR as well as reply filed by the non applicant-State. Para 6 of the reply filed by the non applicant-State, reads thus:

"6.

The non applicant further submits that the non applicant had earlier obtained finger prints of applicants, complainant and other 2 Co-accused who are the applicant in Criminal ABA Application No.514/2015, however, the same has been returned by Finger Print Expert by makingn some queries and

aba518.15 compliance. Therefore the non applicant is required to take fresh finger prints of accused persons as well as complainant and witnesses Parvatibai Niwal so also the custodial interrogation has been necessary for identification by Avinash Dahake as to ascertain who signed on the name of complainant Sudha Dhawale on the day of execution of Sale Deed." Insofar as police custody of the applicant is concerned, para 6 shows that police requires fresh finger prints of the applicant. Care can be taken by asking the applicant to tender fresh finger prints by cooperating with the Police Station Officer. Looking to the stale claim about impersonation in respect of the sale deed dated 24.11.2000, I do not find that it is necessary to arrest the applicants.

In that view of the matter, I make the following order.

ORDER

(i) Criminal Application No.518/2015 is allowed.

(ii) Applicant-Shyamkumar s/o Bansilal Bhavik be released on bail on he executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. (iii) The applicant shall attend Police Station, Yavatmal (City) as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (iv) Liberty is granted to the State to issue summons to the applicant-accused for giving his finger prints, if required.

JUDGE kahale