*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3428/2009 Gopal Pandurang Pawar. ..Applicant -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent ............... Mr.Kamlesh P. Mali, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P., for the Respondent/State. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 17th August, 2009. PC:- 1 Apprehending arrest in Crime No.92/2009 registered at Bazar Peth Police Station, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present application is filed by the Applicant claiming anticipatory bail. 2 The Applicant is working as Rationing Inspector in the office of the Rationing Department situated at Ulhasnagar. F.I.R. is filed by one Manohar Kashinath Gurav, Police Constable that he received information from the reliable source that one person is involved in issuing the bogus ration cards to the persons who do not have the proof of residence. According to the complaint, the said person had contacts with the Rationing Office. On receiving the said information, the Police Constable asked the agent who is co-accused *2* in the present case by name Suresh Sahu for obtaining the ration card. The said agent Suresh Sahu asked for a sum of Rs.7000/- for issuing the ration card and a sum of Rs.2000/- were paid by way of advance. As promised, the agent Suresh Sahu did hand over the ration card to the Police Constable concerned, as such, he came to be arrested. 3 During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the present Applicant was instrumental in causing issuance of the ration card by tampering with the record in the Rationing Office. According to the prosecution, the modus-operandi adopted by the present Applicant was to use the genuine application for the purpose of preparing the bogus ration card by removing the photograph of the genuine applicant and at it’s place affixing the photograph of the bogus applicant and by tampering the genuine application at some places and by making use thereof, case for issuing the fresh ration card was prepared. 4 The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is a Government servant and in the event of his arrest, he would be unnecessarily defamed. It is submitted that the records are already seized and the Applicant is not likely to abscond and his presence could be secured by imposing some conditions. 5 The learned APP has submitted the record to indicate the role played by the present Applicant. He submits that unless the Investigating Agency is given chance of custodial interrogation, no significant progress in the investigation is possible in the present case. 6 Having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances *3* and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. In the result, the Application is rejected. 7 At this stage, the learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant be given sometime to surrender. In the result, the Applicant is granted time till 21.08.2009 to surrender. (A.P. Deshpande, J)