1 926 aba 461-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.461/2025 Hafiz Khan Sarfaraj Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Pinjar, Tah. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K.J. Topale, Advocate for applicant Ms T.H. Udeshi, APP for respondent/State CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 10.07.2025 Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.375/2024 registered with Police Station Pinjar, Tq. Barshitakli, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant approached to this Court for grant of pre arrest bail. 2. As per the allegations, the father of the informant has received the said property from Government, after retirement from the service of Army. On the basis of false and fabricated documents, the present applicant impersonated the original owner and played a role in selling of the said property and thereafter, the informant was duped. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant that he stood as a witness to the said 2 926 aba 461-2025 transaction and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. He is implicated falsely by the co- accused. In view of that the applicant be protected by granting ad-interim anticipatory bail. 4. Learned APP strongly opposed the said application and submitted that considering the role, which is a vital role played by the present applicant that has impersonated the original owner and hence his custodial interrogation is required. 5. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that the role attributed to the present applicant is that he has impersonated the original owner and, thereafter, all the accused in conveyance with each other sold the said property, which was received by the informant by way of gift as his father was serving in Army. In view of that the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The application is rejected. JUDGE R.S. Sahare