[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1895 OF 2008 Vivek Bhole ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar Senior Advocate along with Mr.J.G.Reddy Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 20, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 20, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.343 of 2007 of Borivali Police Station, Mumbai (now CR No.77 of 2007 of EOW). The said case is under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B of IPC. 3. The case relates to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRA). The applicant was the Architect of the said scheme. The learned counsel for the applicant [-2-] submitted that the job of the applicant was only to prepare plans in relation to SRA scheme and he had no further role to play in the matter. The learned APP pointed out that the proposal was sent by the applicant himself to SRA authorities. The learned APP has further pointed out that in the FIR it is stated that the promoters with the help of the present applicant who is an Architect picked up slum dwellers from the voters list of Ward No.45 and centre No.107 who were staying in Pandit Chawl No.2 and Pandit Chawl No.3, which was 1/2 km. away from their area and were never part of SRA scheme of Siddhivinayak CHS (SRA) and Om Vajreshwari Shree Gajanan CHS (SRA). The said promoters showed that slum dwellers of Pandit Chawl had sold their huts to the bogus members shown in Annexure-II of the Om Vajreshwari Shri.Gajanan CHS. They produced purchase affidavits before authorities as documentary evidence. Learned APP stated that all these purchase affidavits are bogus. 4. From the FIR, it is clear that the promoters and the applicant who is an Architect in connivance with the staff of Additional Collector (Encroachment) Western Suburban and SRA authority [-3-] to grab the piece of land situated at Plot No. 449 TPS III Borivali Gorai Road, admeasuring 5560 sq.mtrs. valued at Rs.5 crores floated bogus SRA scheme and built building on it having around 26 rooms and later sold it at market price and made huge wrongful gains and cheated the Government by not paying stamp duty and thereby committed offences of cheating, forgery etc. 5. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that 25 forged affidavits were made in the name of residents who are staying at Ward No.45, Sector No.107 and whose names appeared in the voters list and they have been made eligible in Annexure-II of Shri.Vajreshwari Gajanan Society, SRA. During the course of investigation, police recorded statements of those 25 residents who are residing at Pandit Chawl. They stated that they have been residing in the said Chawl since long and all of them have denied that they are having any rooms at Plot No.449. They also denied making affidavit to that effect. They further stated that they did not know those persons. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted [-4-] that the custody of the applicant would not be necessary as the case is based mainly on documentary evidence. However, this case relates to SRA scheme which was valued at more than Rs.5 crores. The custody of the applicant would be necessary to find out the exact nature and extent of racket as well as to find out who else is involved in the case. 7. In my view, the material on record is such as to point out an accusing finger towards applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 8. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]