1 BA 854.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 854 OF 2011 Mr. Mahesh alias Rishikesh Bhanudas Dhamale & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Pankaj D. Purway i/b. Subhash Hulyalkar for the Applicants. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 15th JUNE 2011. P.C. :- Heard, 2. I have gone through the FIR and glanced through the papers of investigation. 3. The learned APP states that the Investigating Officer is not present and the entire papers of investigation are not available with the Police Constable Mr. Jadhav, who is present before this Court. However, on going through the bail application and the annexures thereto, as also the papers of investigation as are available with the APP today, I do not 2 BA 854.11.sxw think that the matter needs to be adjourned, merely because the Investigating Officer is not present. 4. It is clear that one Sagar Kamble is the main accused in this case. He is alleged to have cheated a number of persons including the first informant, by stating that he would get them appointed in the Police. For securing a job for them, the said Sagar Kamble has taken different amounts from the first informant and other victims. He is also alleged to have given bogus appointment letters and bogus identity cards to the first informant and other persons 5. The role attributed to the present Applicants is that they have assisted the said Sagar Kamble in preparing bogus documents i.e. the appointment letters and the identity cards. From the statement of one Kiran, recorded in the course of investigation, it does not appear that the Applicant No.1 had knowingly assisted the said Sagar Kamble, who prepared the false document. The possibility of the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicants that even these Applicants were falsely told by the said Sagar Kamble that he had authority to get the rubber stamps and the identity cards, 3 BA 854.11.sxw etc. prepared, on behalf of the Police force being factually correct, cannot be, entirely, ruled out. 6. However, even assuming that the Applicants are involved in the commission of alleged offences, it is obvious that only a minor role has been attributed to them. The Applicant No.1 is in custody since 30th May 2011 and the Applicant No.2 is in custody since 16th May 2011. There are no antecedents. 7. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to them. 8. The Applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, with one surety, in like amount, on the condition to attend the concerned Police Station for investigation/interrogation, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.)