Kriti Agrawal
The Supreme Court issued a notice and granted interim relief from arrest to a government official accused of cheating and forgery.
The case was registered with the MIDC, Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra.
A two-judge bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari imposed a six-week deadline for the State of Maharashtra to respond to an appeal filed by a man serving as Sub-Registrar at Murud.
The Supreme Court said in its order that, “Petitioner is free to act as the State of Maharashtra’s standing counsel. In the meantime, the applicant shall not be detained in connection with the F.I.R. bearing C.R No. 361 of 2020 registered with the MIDC, Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra.”
The current appeal before the Supreme Court was filed in response to the order of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad, which had rejected the co-anticipatory accused’s bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The accusation against Pandit was that he conspired with the other accused to enable a declaration deed to be registered that contained recitals regarding the transfer of property by the informant to the persons making the declaration when no such selling deed was ever executed and registered between the informant and the main accused making the declaration.
The Bombay High Court Judge said, “I have carefully gone through the investigation documents.”
According to the allegations, the applicant assisted the prime accused in registering a declaration deed containing recitals about the execution of a sale deed allegedly executed by the owner of the property the informant in favour of the key accused to suit their purpose and have the land mutated in their names.
He further added that “This was viewed by the Controller of Stamps, who issued such Circular dated December 22, 2011, observing that experience had shown that such kind of transactions and declaration deeds were being performed and registered”
The High Court denied Pandit’s pre-arrest bail petition based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
The High Court noted that the interrogation of Pandit (petitioner) in custody becomes necessary in this case, especially when conspiracy charges are involved.
