1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1449 OF 2010 Sujata Hemant Gosavi )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for the applicant. Smt. V. R. Bhonsale APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 31st March, 2010 PC 1 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is shown as an accused in C.R.No.7/2002 registered by the Bandgarden police station, Pune for alleged offences under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, 120-B read with 34 of IPC. This is a very serious case in which the allegation is that the applicant’s husband by name Hemant Gosavi and one of his colleague Shantaram Trimbak Gosavi who was working as a commission agent appointed by the Small Savings Department have spirited away amount of Rs.60,81,998/- and have deposited the cheques by opening fake bank account. There is a further allegation that the entire amount has been mis-appropriated. The FIR was filed by the Director of Small Savings Pune on 8.1.2002 and on the basis of such FIR a crime was registered. It appears that Shantaram and Hemant applied for anticipatory bail in the court of Sessions and that bail application came to be allowed on 28.1.2002. I have perused the reasons given in the said application and I am not at all convinced with the reasons stated 2 in that application for granting anticipatory bail. It appears that revision was filed against the said order by the State and the said revision was delayed by 12 days. This Court dismissed Criminal Revision Application being Criminal Revision Application No.200/2002 filed by the State. I have perused the order of the High Court. The revision was dismissed by the High Court without going into the merits of the case and on the footing that it was doubtful if such revision was maintainable. While passing this order the court observed that at this distance of time question of cancelling anticipatory bail does not arise. 2 I have directed the Investigating officer to file an additional affidavit dealing with the delay in filing of the charge-sheet in this case. Investigating officer has stated that there was no co-operation with the investigation and in spite of several requests only 24 bogus claims were produced by the Small Savings Department on 23.1.2002, 30.9.2004 and 12.4.2005. He has stated that in spite of repeated correspondence, remaining 152 claims were not handed over by concerned department for investigation. 3 The present Investigating officer has taken charge on 23.7.2009 and he claims to have arrested 23 accused persons till today. He has stated that the charge-sheet will be filed shortly. In my view, this is a case where public monies were spirited away and not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to any of the accused. 4 In the circumstances, application is rejected. It is made clear that if the Investigating officer finds that the Small Savings Department is not co-operating with him and not handing over the correspondence regarding various claims, it is his duty to proceed to the office and seized these papers. Investigating officer is present in Court and it is expected 3 that he will complete the investigation within a period of 3 months from today and file a charge-sheet. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order will not be used in case the applicant applies for regular bail in due course as also at the stage of the trial. Advocate for the applicant states that some time may be granted for surrender. It is seen that investigation is already delayed. However, taking into account that applicant is a lady, she may not be arrested till 5th April 2010. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4