MAPUSA
In a contrasting outcome, the Additional Sessions Court at Mapusa has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a businessman while granting pre-arrest bail to his wife in a case involving alleged fabrication of documents to claim rights over Comunidade of Serula land at Socorro.
The husband, Rajesh Sawaikar (66), has been denied anticipatory bail, with Additional Sessions Judge Reina S Fernandes holding that his custodial interrogation was necessary to recover allegedly forged documents and establish the involvement of other persons in the case.
His wife was granted anticipatory bail in the same FIR registered at Porvorim police station for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC, relating to forgery, use of forged documents and cheating. Both orders were pronounced on November 3.
The case stems from a complaint lodged on October 1 by Peter Martins, attorney of the Comunidade of Serula, alleging that the couple and others had prepared forged documents to fraudulently claim rights over plots in survey number 362/1 at Socorro.
The prosecution alleged that fabricated certificates, gazette notifications, communidade resolutions, payment receipts and government correspondence were used to establish claims over the plots without following the mandatory allotment procedure.
Opposing the husband's bail plea, the investigating officer informed the court that the comunidade had denied issuing the alleged documents. It also stated that no resolution allotting plot number 26 in his favour was passed by its general body.
The investigation further revealed that payment receipts showing amounts of Rs 3.78 lakh and Rs 18,900 allegedly paid by the applicant to the comunidade were not reflected in its cash records. The court observed that the receipts prima facie appeared to be forged and fabricated.
The court also rejected the defence argument that the dispute was civil in nature, pointing out that the pendency of a civil suit filed by Sawaikar against the comunidade did not prevent criminal investigation into allegations of forgery and cheating.
In contrast, while granting bail to his wife, the court observed that she claimed ownership of plot A-20 in survey number 362/1-B (part) on the basis of a registered sale deed dated May 8, 2013, through a chain of successive conveyances, and not on the basis of documents allegedly issued by the comunidade.
It held that her custodial interrogation was not warranted.
The wife has been directed to cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for questioning whenever required.
She will be released on a personal bond of Rs 30,000 with one local surety in the event of arrest.
