IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1657 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1657 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1657 OF 2008 Shamrao Vishnu Mandve. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr V. V. Purwant, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the Applicant. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 5.6.2008. DATED: 5.6.2008. DATED: 5.6.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and material available on record. 3. The applicant has filed present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail, after having suffered adverse order dated 9.05.2008 refusing to grant such relief by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.139 of 2008 punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Jawahar Police Station. 4. The observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, while rejecting application are as under:- "...Perused the police papers. According to Mr Bhoir, the work of the road was completed as per the plan and proposals. But, due to the heavy rain, the road is washed away. There is no intention of the applicant to misappropriate the amount without doing any work. The xerox copies of the photographs of the road are attached in the police papers, from which it appears that there was no road in existence as submitted by Mr More on behalf of the applicant. It is stated that the sub-engineers acted upon the report filed by the Contrator. In turn, the Deputy Engineer and thereafter, the Executive Engineer also acted upon the same report and forwarded the bill for encashment. Though it was the duty of these engineers to visit the site and to see whether the work of construction of road is completed, instead they forwarded the bills of the road which was never constructed by the contrator. The work of this applicant was to prepare the M.B.record and to send it to Panchayat Samiti. It appears that he filed a false M.B. record and submitted it to Panchayat Samiti to sanction the bill. He also appears to be in joining hands with the contractor, so also, other accused persons. There are very serious allegations against the applicant. Various types of documents are yet to be recovered. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. I, therefore, find that he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.." 5. The photos of the alleged constructed road are taken and retained on record. They speak very sorry state of affair warranting investigation. The reasons given by the Additional Sessions Court while rejecting prayer for anticipatory bail cannot be faulted with. 6. Having seen the prima facie material available on record to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence and the reasons recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in its order dated 9.5.2008 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 730 of 2008 which still hold good, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Submission of the applicant-accused that he is innocent can also be verified by giving free hand to investigation. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this application. 7. In the result, the present application stands rejected. However, observations made in this order are prima facie, they shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)