IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 2008 Mr.Kattam Reddy Pattabhiram Reddy. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. S.P.Rao i/b. Gauri S. Rao for the applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 2nd May 2008. DATED: 2nd May 2008. DATED: 2nd May 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.659/2007 registered with Deccan Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 471 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) on the basis of the complaint filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation. 3. The factual matrix reveals that the applicant is a construction contractor. He entered into a contract with the Pune Municipal Corporation ("Corporation" for short) since he was a successful bidder. By way of security, he furnished Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs.10 lakh with the Corporation. The Corporation authority has alleged that the work done by applicant pursuant to the work order was substandard. Consequently, the FDRs were sent to the Bank for encashment. The Bank refused to make payment. At that time, the Corporation was informed by the Bank that those FDRs were forged. As a result, complaint was lodged against the applicant with the Deccan Police Station, Pune which came to be registered as C.R.No.659/2007 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 471 of I.P.C. 4. The applicant’s case is that he had five fixed deposits made in the Karur Vysya Bank having its branch office at Kothrud, Pune. That the Bank had issued FDRs. Those FDRs were submitted by him to the Corporation. That he had demanded interest certificates from the Bank but they were not issued. It appears that he has also lodged report which was turned out to be of no effect. He, therefore, finally lodged private complaint. The Magistrate ordered investigation under section 156(3). The said investigation is still pending. - 3 - 5. The applicant apprehending his arrest moved application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which came to be rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Pune vide his order dated 13th February, 2008. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that Writ Petition No.2266/2007 was filed by the applicant in this Court seeking to quash the F.I.R. registered against him. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 14th December, 2007. While disposing of the said writ petition, learned Division Bench of this Court directed that if the Deccan Road Police Station intends to arrest the applicant then they shall give him 48 hours notice. 6. The learned A.P.P., appearing for the State has opposed this application for anticipatory bail. She submits that when the investigating officer went to serve 48 hours notice of his intention to arrest the applicant as ordered by learned Division Bench, the applicant was not found at the address given. Twice the attempt was made to serve 48 hours notice on the application but notice could not be served since the applicant is absconding. - 4 - 7. This matter was on my board on 30th April, 2008. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the applicant had stated that Rs.10 lakh were deposited with the Bank in cash. Consequently, enquiry was made as to how such huge amount was deposited in cash. It was also enquired as to whether the entry of having deposited the amount of Rs.10 lakh in cash was made in the books of accounts by the applicant since he is a contractor having turn over in lakhs. The learned counsel for the applicant, for want of instruction in this behalf, prayed for time to take instructions and make statement. Consequently, the application was adjourned. That is how the matter has come on today’s board for further hearing. 8. Today, learned counsel for the applicant states that he could not get any instruction as the applicant could not trace his account books, which, according to him, are admittedly kept in the residential premises of the applicant. 9. Having heard both parties, having seen the allegation and counter allegations and taking judicial note of the bank transactions, one finds it difficult - 5 - to accept the case sought to be propounded by the applicant that he is being falsely implicated. The allegations and counter allegations made need investigation. The necessity of custodial investigation cannot be ruled out as the Apex Court in the case of C.B.I. v Anil Sharma C.B.I. v Anil Sharma C.B.I. v Anil Sharma, 1997 (7) SCC 187, has ruled that custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well protected under the umbrella of section 438 of Cr.P.C. 10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE