1 69.11-aba IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.69 of 2011 Abdul Hafeez Abdul Rashid Saheb Shaikh ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.V.V.Purwant for Applicant. Mrs.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 8, 2011 P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the applicant in this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.No. 311/2010 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur. 2. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the documents accompanied the application. Also perused the police investigation papers. The investigation is in progress. Co-accused has already been arrested and released on bail. After filing of the FIR on 19th December, 2010, during investigation, the present applicant could not be arrested. He had preferred the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Solapur on 28th December, 2010 and it was registered on 13th January, 2011. Since then, there is no protection from arrest of the present applicant. However, still Police Machinery is unable to apprehend the applicant on the charges of forgery and cheating reportedly on account of his non availability. 3. According to the allegations in the FIR, the present applicant is related to the complainant and is the main person behind obtaining the pass- port in the name of co-accused on the basis of fabricated documents such as school leaving certificate and ration card. During arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant tried to submit that the alleged offence of fabrication of documents was committed some time in December, 1996. However, for a 2 69.11-aba particular period, the applicant was out of India and the relevant dates are specified in the affidavit of the present applicant dated 28th February, 2011. By this position, still if it is accepted as authentic, it cannot be construed that the present applicant had nothing to do with preparation of such documents, more over there being specific allegation in the FIR. Moreover, the investigation is still continuing and the applicant is resident of Saudi Arabia. In the opinion of this Court, the discretionary relief of pre-arrest of bail cannot be granted in favour of the applicant and the investigating machinery is required to be given an opportunity to have custodial interrogation of the applicant. 4. While dictating the present order, a request is made on behalf of the applicant that instead of inviting any observations, the applicant may be allowed to surrender before the concerned Court. However, in the opinion of this Court, such mode would not sub-serve the purpose of the investigation of the police having the custody of the applicant. Needless to mention that such cases of fabrication of documents and obtaining passport in fictitious names have far reaching ramifications and in such matters, the police machinery is required to have the benefit of custodial interrogation. In this view of the matter, the request made on behalf of the applicant as to surrender before the concerned Court cannot be also acceded. In the result, the present application is dismissed with following order. ORDER a) Application is dismissed. b) The observations made in the present order are limited for the purpose of the present application. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)