Devidas S/O Ramrao Deshmukh v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Ajni, Nagpur City, Dist. Nagpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.513/2025 (Devidas S/o Ramrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur City, District Nagpur) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.U. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Anant Ghogare, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State. Mr. Rohit Masurkar, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATED: 3.12.2025.

Since July 2025 this matter is pending. Since last two dates the learned Advocate for the complainant is requesting for time to file reply and has not filed reply.

2.

The matter is heard.

3.

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.265/2022 registered with Police Station Ajni, Nagpur, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the informant Pravin Dnyaneshwar Dahake on an allegation that the property bearing Khasra No.74/2, P.H.No.39, sheet No.72, City Survey No.4666 admeasuring 4 acres situated at Babulkheda was originally owned by Trivedi family. That 2 acres of land was declared surplus in ULC Case No.750/76 as per order, and accordingly, the acres were reduced. The surplus land which was acquired by the government was later returned to the owner for implementation of scheme for construction

of houses for the economically backward people. The Trivedi family executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr. Baban Shende of M/s Ekmat Construction Company Private Limited for implementation of the said scheme. An agreement for development and sale was entered between the Trivedi family and M/s Om Builders and Developers and M/s Ekmat Construction Company Private Limited for the purpose of implementation of the said scheme. The scheme could not be implemented since there was reservation on the land. The competent authority its vide order granted permission to implement the scheme and also sanctioned the Layout plan. Subsequently, the reservation was cancelled and therefore, the applicant submitted an application for mutation of his name on the revenue record.

The name of present applicant was recorded by the Tahsildar on 7/12 extract vide Mutation Entry No.2547. Thus, so far as Khasra No.74/2 which was retained by the Trivedi family, the land was later sold to M/s Ekmat Construction Company Private Limited by the Trivedi family, who in turn formed Ekmat Cooperative Society and sold plots. However, while selling plots, Mr. Shende did not execute the agreement of sale. One such purchaser was Mr. Waman Bomble and said Mr. Bomble sold the plot to Mr. Pravin Dahake, by forging the entries on the revenue record. As far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he has signed on the sale deed as a witness. He submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is, the nature of the allegation is of a civil nature. The immediate custodial interrogation is not required.

In view of that, he prayed to allow the application.

5.

Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that considering the fact that the applicant has signed the said sale deed which was allegedly forged. His involvement in the conspiracy was revealed. In view of that, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.

6.

The learned Advocate for the complainant opposed the application stating that the accused has committed the offence and his custodial interrogation is necessary.

7.

The applicant was protected on 14.7.2025. Considering the reasons given while granting ad interim protection, interim order is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

(MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar.

Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/12/2025 18:08:41