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 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1197 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1197 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1197 OF 2008 1. Mr Madanlal Gangadhar Partani, 2. Mr Rajesh Madanlal Partani, Applicants Vs 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Shri Chandrakant Maruti Kharje, Respondents. Mr Shirish Gupte, senior counsel, i/b Mr Ganesh Gole, for the applicants. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 07/10/2008 DATE : 07/10/2008 DATE : 07/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned senior counsel, for the applicants and Mr Yagnik, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.52 of 2008 of Samarth Police Station, Pune. The said crime has been registered for offence punishable under sections 406,420, 467,468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC and under section 25 (3)(1) of the Bombay Money Lending Act. 3. It appears that the applicants are engaged in money lending and sale and purchase of the Auto-riksha business. The complainant had initially purchased two auto-rikshas from the applicants. There was some dispute and in view thereof the applicants had withdrawn those rikshas from the complainant. That dispute between the complainant and the applicants was settled by one Suhas Shinde. Thereafter, the complainant purchased another two rikshas from the applicants. It appears that those rikshas were seized by the RTO and the applicants by making payment of fine got those rikshas released. It is further alleged that the applicants gave those rikshas to other persons and that they have committed an offence of forgery for purpose of cheating. It is against this backdrop, the complainant has lodged the FIR mainly under sections 467,468 and 420 read with section 34 of IPC so also under section 25 (3) (1) of the Bombay Money Lending Act. The applicants are protected by the order of this court since 21.4.2008 and during this period they were also directed to attend the concerned police station and cooperate with the investigating agency. It appears that during this period the applicants and the complainant were negotiating for settlement. However, the settlement has not been materialised. Mr Yagnik, learned APP, on instructions, submits that the applicants have not produced certain documents during interrogation. Mr Gupte, learned senior counsel, on the other hand, submitted that there was Income tax raid, in which the officers of the Income-tax department had seized several documents from the custody of the applicants including the documents which were demanded by the investigating agency. He submits that the applicants are prepared to satisfy the investigating officer about those documents, if they are given such opportunity. Keeping that in view and having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 4. In the event of arrest, the applicants to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make the said amount, subject to the condition that the applicants shall report to the concerned police station every alternate day between 10 am and 12 noon till 20.10.2008 and thereafter on every 1st and 3rd Saturday between 10 am and 12 noon for a period of 90 days from their formal arrest or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)