1 1 1 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.1151 OF 2008 Sunil Melepath Prabhakaran .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Amol A.Deshpande for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 3TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 3TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 3TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.46 of 2008 of Hinjewadi police station, Pune. The crime has been registered mainly under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. It is on the allegations that the applicant, who was working with Asahi India Glass Ltd. as a Key Accounts Manager committed criminal breach of trust with respect to glass pieces, entrusted to him, worth Rs.12 Lacs. His prayer for the anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the applicant despite specific directions of this court has not remain present before the court, and secondly, on the 2 2 2 merits. On merits, Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that none of the ingredients of section 408 stand satisfied in the present case and hence the applicant deserves the relief of anticipatory bail. He submits that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the property in question was ever entrusted to the applicant and he had dominion over the said property. I have perused the entire material produced on record by the learned A.P.P. and more particularly affidavit filed by the State opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail. There is ample material on record in the form of statements recorded by the police to show that the applicant was incharge of the material which he allegedly sold in the market to one Mr.Naresh Agarwal. The statements of Sunil Patra, Naresh Agarwal, Shailesh Shah, Babloo Sharma and the other material on record clearly show that prima facie case under section 408 is made out against the applicant. The appilcation is, accordingly, rejected. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)