1. Case Background:
Three applicants—Dinkar Shankar Deshmukh, Archana Shailendra Pakale, and Manohar Genba Chivhe—filed anticipatory bail applications. They were sub-Registrars at the time of the alleged offense. The applicants are accused of facilitating illegal sale transactions of forest land, which is prohibited by law, under FIR No. 0298/2024 registered at Junnar Police Station, Pune District. They are charged under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Legal Arguments by the Applicants:
The applicants argued that their duties as sub-Registrars are governed by the Registration Act, 1908, specifically Section 34. The scope of their inquiry as per this section is limited to verifying the identity and execution of documents, not assessing the legality of the subject matter of the transactions. Citing precedents like Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra and Govind Ramling Solpure v. State of Maharashtra, the applicants contended that they were merely performing their official duties and cannot be held criminally liable.

3. State's Argument:
The state relied on a communication issued by the Range Forest Officer in 2007, which directed sub-Registrars not to register transactions involving forest land. The state argued that the applicants violated laws prohibiting such transactions, including provisions from the Indian Forest Act, 1927, making them criminally liable.

Court's Findings and Judgment:

1. Limited Scope of Sub-Registrars' Role (Section 34 of Registration Act):
The court reiterated the limited role of the sub-Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908. The statute requires the officer to verify only the identity and execution of documents. The court observed that the state’s reliance on executive instructions (such as the 2007 letter from the Range Forest Officer) could not extend or override the duties set by statutory law.

2. Precedent Cases:
The court relied on past judgments (Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar and Govind Ramling Solpure) where it was clarified that the sub-Registrar does not have the authority to investigate the legality of the transactions, nor can they refuse registration based on the subject matter.

3. Absence of Criminality and Prima Facie Case for Bail:
The court found no evidence suggesting the applicants registered the documents for any extraneous consideration or that they were part of a larger conspiracy. In the absence of a money trail or any direct involvement, the applicants were granted anticipatory bail.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34): Charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and conspiracy were laid against the applicants.
• Registration Act, 1908 (Section 34): Defines the scope of enquiry for a Registering Officer, limiting it to the identity and execution of the document, not the legality of its subject matter.
• Indian Forest Act, 1927: Cited by the state as the basis for prohibiting transactions involving forest land.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court underscored that the duty of a sub-Registrar under the Registration Act does not extend to assessing the legality of transactions concerning forest land. Furthermore, the court emphasized that statutory law prevails over executive instructions, and the applicants were not found to have committed any criminal offenses in the course of performing their duties.

Subjects:

Anticipatory Bail, Registration Act, Indian Penal Code, Sub-Registrars, Illegal Transactions, Forest Land, Criminal Liability.