1 ABA 882 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.882 OF 2011 Rasheed Sorab Ardeshir .. Applicant. -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, for the applicant. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 8th November, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a person, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No.170 of 2011, registered with Manpada Police Station, Dombivali, District: Thane, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the applicant is shown to have identified the executants of document dated 17.9.2007, before the Sub Registrar, the learned counsel for the applicant points out that the F.I.R. mentions that it was Jamnadas Chandan, confirming party, who had set up one person who impersonated as Milind Madhav Shahapurkar. F.I.R. does not show that the applicant was in any way concerned with identifying wrong person as Milind Shahapurkar. Learned counsel for the applicant also 2 ABA 882 OF 2011 states that on page No.69 i.e. page no.13 of the document, applicant has merely signed as being present when the other signatories signed the document. In view of this, though the learned APP has strong objection, there is no point in subjecting the applicant to custodial interrogation. Application is allowed. In the event of applicant's arrest in above crime, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/-, on the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall make himself available on 21st November, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. iv) The order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if chargesheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa 3 ABA 882 OF 2011 Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors, in S.L.P No.7615 of 2009. v) Application stands disposed of. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)