APPLN-4836-10.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4836 OF 2010 [FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL] Virender Singh Bharara & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Versova Police Station, Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. Amin Solkar for the Applicants. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Intervenor. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 14 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Solkar, the learned Advocate for the Applicants, Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the Respondent, and Mr. Saraogi, the learned Advocate for the Intervenor, at length. 2. I have gone through the orders dated 26th October, 2010 and 3rd December, 2010 passed by the Court. The Applicant No.1 is only the Financer in respect of the Society, who was approached by the Society's office bearers. The Applicant No.2 is his relative. The dispute in the present case arose on account of the double allotment of Flat No.B-102. The allegation is that the allotment letter issued to Smt. Muktabai Shivram Raut was tampered with, by changing the flat number by applying whitener. There is no satisfactory material to indicate that this has been done by any of the Applicants. APPLN-4836-10.sxw 2 Dixit 3. Indeed, some wrongs appear to have taken place in the allotment, as a number of flats have been allotted to two persons at the same time. However, the role of the Applicants in such transactions is not clear at this stage. Mr. Saraogi contended that it has been done by the other accused in collusion with the Applicants. 4. I find that the office bearers of the Society - the co-accused - were arrested and released on bail in due course. The Applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail in the month of October, 2010. Pursuant to the said order, the Applicants were arrested and released. Their custodial interrogation does not seem to be necessary, from the point of view of the investigation. At this stage, therefore, only on the allegation that the Applicants are the persons who have actually tampered with the records, it is not desirable to refuse anticipatory bail to them. 5. In my opinion, investigation can be properly and effectively carried out even if the Applicants are allowed to remain on the anticipatory bail. 6. The interim order of anticipatory bail passed on 26th October, 2010 is confirmed. 7. The Application for Anticipatory Bail stands disposed of in terms of the said order. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]