..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2646 OF 2008 Mr.Darshanjeet Singh Kewal Singh Bhasin. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Meghashyam Kocharekar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.1 of 2007 of Vile Parle police station, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 3. The complainant Bank has lodged its FIR against the applicant. The prosecution case is that the applicants tendered false documents in order to secure loan from Syndicate Bank, Vile ..(2).. Parle branch. Subsequently, the loan was disbursed by the bank. It is revealed that a bogus developer was created and in order to secure the loan amount, bogus agreements have been prepared. Four bank employees including the Manager of the bank have been made co-accused and they have been arrested. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has paid back the entire loan to the Bank and the Bank has given certificate stating that the applicant has cleared the liability. Thus, he submitted that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The material on record clearly shows that the applicant submitted false documents in order to obtain loan from the complainant Bank. The material on record clearly implicates the applicant. 6. Moreover, in my view, the FIR and the other material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicant. The Apex ..(3).. Court has observed in the decision of Directorate Directorate Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)